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

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.