Here's an excellent & concise explanation from Rush on who Khashoggi was and what he was actually up to..which is a very far cry from what the media's been trying to sell to America...

Most notably, the US will most likely (soon) be adding the Muslim Brotherhood, a root terror organization that Obama, by the way,  adored, to the official list of known terrorist organizations of which many other countries have already recognized & published.

Khashoggi was a Trump critic and stalwart advocate/member of the Muslim Brotherhood terror organization, having joined with them all the way back in the seventies.

~ Refocus Notes

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Transcript From Rush Limbaugh

I think Jamal Khashoggi was much more than a journalist.

Yeah, he wrote opinion pieces for the Washington Post, and so they’re running around saying he was an American citizen, an American journalist. But I don’t think that’s who the Saudis saw when they saw Jamal Khashoggi.

I think they saw an enemy of the regime. I think they saw a guy who’s tight with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, the agents of change in the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis do not get along in any way, shape, manner, or form.

No, no. Do not misunderstand me. I’m not advocating or trying to excuse whatever they did to Khashoggi.

I’m just trying to tell you that he’s not an innocent, minding-his-own-business journalist going about his life gunned down. He was an enemy of the regime, and he once held a position in the Saudi government ” I’m telling you, the Drive-Bys have been dying to tie Trump to this murder.

I think that they would love to undermine Trump’s relationship with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudis in general, and so would the Democrats. It’s just the latest in a never-ending parade of events that the left thinks they can use to destroy and get rid of Trump.

Khashoggi was a friend of Osama Bin Laden.

They went to high school together. But that’s not what you need to know about Khashoggi. Khashoggi’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are what’s really relevant here. I think… They’re trying to tell us that Khashoggi was murdered by Mohammed bin Salman because Khashoggi was being critical of the regime and you just don’t do that. And while that’s true, I think there’s a lot more to this than just he got killed because of stuff he was writing in the Washington Post.

I found a piece on him by John R. Bradley at Spectator.us, and Bradley has been following Saudi politics, Middle East politics, Muslim Brotherhood expertise for many, many moons. And his story ran three days ago, and you haven’t seen a thing about this anywhere in the Drive-By Media like Missourians are not seeing a word about Project Veritas exposing Claire McCaskill.

The piece is entitled, “What the Media Are Not Telling You About Jamal Khashoggi — The dissident’s fate says a lot about Saudi Arabia and the rise of the mobster state.” Now, here are just some biographical things. The fate of Khashoggi has at least provoked global outrage, but it’s for all the wrong reasons. We are told he was a liberal, Saudi progressive voice fighting for freedom and democracy, and a martyr who paid the ultimate price for telling the truth to power.

John R. Bradley

“This is not just wrong but distracts us from understanding what the incident tells us about the internal power dynamics of a kingdom going through an unprecedented period of upheaval. It is also the story of how one man got entangled in a Saudi ruling family that operates like the Mafia. Once you join, it’s for life, and if you try to leave, you become disposable.” So the point this piece is gonna make is that Khashoggi’s not a distant and removed commentator/journalist writing about the Saudi kingdom from afar.

He used to be part of it.

He’s not… Well, the Khashoggis… Adnan Khashoggi was very, very tight with the royal family. I don’t know about bloodlines, but he was… You’re not allowed to become Adnan Khashoggi and acquire that much wealth — particularly running guns and arms — without being tight with the royal family. Jamal Khashoggi is a cousin of Adnan Khashoggi. This piece makes it clear (as you’ll hear in a moment) that Jamal Khashoggi — at one time in his life, at one point — was very, very tight with the ruling family, the royal family, was in the regime.

“This is not just wrong but distracts us from understanding what the incident tells us about the internal power dynamics of a kingdom going through an unprecedented period of upheaval. It is also the story of how one man got entangled in a Saudi ruling family that operates like the Mafia. Once you join, it’s for life, and if you try to leave, you become disposable. In truth, Khashoggi never had much time for Western-style pluralistic democracy.

“In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence.” Now, that right there will provide all of us the first source of serious conflict between Khashoggi and the current Saudi ruling royal family. “[T]he Muslim Brotherhood … exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence.” What’s Mohammed bin Salman doing? He’s trying to westernize the country! He’s a Millennial.

He’s trying to reform it in certain ways, letting women vote and letting women drive, but not much else. He wants the world to think that there’s massive reform happening in the kingdom. So he does something very visible, like letting women drive. But not much more. They’re still very subjugated. He’s meeting with all of the tech people in Silicon Valley and the Hollywood people. He wants to build a brand-new city from scratch — a huge, dynamic, brand-new city — that incorporates money from Silicon Valley and Hollywood and involves all of those people as developers and investors. 

But nevertheless he’s the first of the ruling royal family to ever talk this way, to ever travel the world and set something up like this, and this is anathema to the Muslim Brotherhood! They can’t stand this! There’s something else that the royal family’s doing, and I mentioned this when I was talking about who Khashoggi was and Mohammed bin Salman last week. That is this: Up to 9/11 and even many years after 9/11, the ruling religious dominance in Saudi Arabia was Wahhabism.

All of the clerics, all of the imams were Wahhabi Islamists, and these are the terrorist-inspiring Islamists.

These are the imams, the educators at all the universities which teach and recruit and inspire the Osama Bin Laden-type terrorism. Mohammed bin Salman wants to rid Saudi Arabia of the influence of Wahhabism. Well, that’s not gonna sit well with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is not particularly tied to Wahhabism. 

They have their own version of terrorist Islam.

But the fact that the Saudi rile family, which, by definition, and by corporate structure, is in charge of Islam. Mecca and Medina are… Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family is Islam. It’s their charge with maintaining it, protecting it, defining it, the mosques, particularly in Mecca. And for Mohammed bin Salman to come along and try to eliminate the influences of Wahhabism, while at the same time importing such corporate scum as Hollywood and American technology? 

This is considered to be an absolute affront to people like the Muslim Brotherhood, which wants to get rid of any Western influence in Islam or in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the Islamic world! So Mohammed bin Salman has made himself a huge, huge target. Khashoggi, as a Muslim Brotherhood member, would be diametrically opposed to everything Mohammed bin Salman is doing. And that has been well established and has been documented. 

Rush Limbaugh

Again here, according to Mr. Bradley, “Khashoggi never had much time for Western-style pluralistic democracy.

In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence.” Well, here comes Mohammed bin Salman incorporating Western influence in Saudi Arabia. Khashoggi “was a political Islamist until the end, recently praising the Muslim Brotherhood in the Washington Post. 

“He championed the ‘moderate’ Islamist opposition in Syria, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of record. Khashoggi frequently sugarcoated his Islamist beliefs with constant references to freedom and democracy. But he never hid that he was in favor of a Muslim Brotherhood arc throughout the Middle East.

His recurring plea to bin Salman in his columns was to embrace not a western-style democracy, but the rise of political Islam which the Arab Spring had inadvertently given rise to. For Khashoggi, secularism was the enemy.” 

He was not an Americanized Islamist.

He was not pro-democracy.

This was a Muslim Brotherhood advocate and member, and he is righteously indignant over the reforms of Mohammed bin Salman and wrote about them. But he threw in the words “democracy” and “freedom” and “liberty,” and this was all designed to cow Western readers and Western journalists into thinking that he was something that he’s not. 

Much like liberals have to mask who they are, that’s what Khashoggi was doing. “He had been a journalist in the 1980s and 1990s, but then became more of a player than a spectator. Before working with a succession of Saudi princes, he edited Saudi newspapers. The exclusive remit a Saudi government-appointed newspaper editor has is to ensure nothing remotely resembling honest journalism” makes it into the papers. So when the Saudi ruling family hired him to run journalism, it was to be PR. It was to be propaganda. 

Khashoggi did it. He took the money, he “put the money in the bank,” and he did what the royal family wanted him to do. He made “a handsome living,” which, according to Mr. Bradley here, has “always [been] his top priority. … Khashoggi had this undeserved status in the West” that our caller is talking about “because of the publicity surrounding his sacking as editor of the Saudi daily Al Watan back in 2003. … He was dismissed because he allowed a columnist to criticize an Islamist thinker considered to be the founding father of Wahhabism. 

“Thus, overnight, Khashoggi became known as a liberal progressive” in the Saudi Kingdom and outside. And that’s another reason why the left in this country champions him because that’s who he was. “The Muslim Brotherhood, though, has always been at odds with the Wahhabi movement. Khashoggi and his fellow travelers believe in imposing Islamic rule by engaging in the democratic process".....

Continue Reading

Listen

Watch

CRN Politics

By Barry Secrest

The Council on Foreign Relations which views Trump's successful efforts towards "Making America Great Again," as a rather nauseating turn of events, has now weighed in on Trump's limitation of importing the very same refugees that have overrun & nearly ruined Europe.

In the following narrative, the CFR poses as expectantly whiny & dismissive of Trump's new limitations on America's taking in of additional refugees, specifically, those emanating from Africa.

The essential basis for the CFR's disdain lies in their comparison between Trump's refugee-wise limitations, versus Obama's recklessly flinging of America wide open, for any and all to wander in.

The CFR is a powerful organization boasting the memberships of virtually every significant mainstream media publisher, including the Wall Street Journal,  and is a significant international player in their fight to globalize America into just another equal and unexceptional actor in a future world Union of un-sovereign nations.

Of the insidious CFR, from Conservative icon Lew Rockwell:

"From its very outset, the CFR as the US elite’s most public face subversively promoting New World Order has always maintained one explicit purpose – to bring about a one world government.

In 1975 powerful CFR insider and former Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Chester Ward wrote in his book entitled Kissinger on the Couch about the ultimate aim of the Council on Foreign Relations: 

[The CFR has as a goal] submergence of US sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government… this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership… In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First.’

 So, it's completely unsurprising that the CFR waxes forth with a whiny testament towards Trump's efforts to unravel the elite's schemes, as it involves America, however, it does fit rather snuggly in the global elites' overall plans, as many Watchers have asserted.

From the CFR:

"The Trump administration has announced that it plans to reduce refugee admissions to the United States next year from 45,000 to 30,000. This would be the lowest ceiling for refugee admissions since 1980.

The current fiscal year’s ceiling of 45,000 includes 19,000 from Africa, just over 40 percent of the total. The fiscal year runs from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018. However, as of August 31, The United States admitted only 9,007 African refugees.

The countries from which the largest number of refugees were admitted are the Democratic Republic of the Congo with 6,820, followed by Ethiopia with 261, Somalia with 250, Burundi with 157, and Central African Republic with 136. In the first two weeks of September, another 559 refugees from Africa have been admitted, though a breakdown by nationality is not yet available. Notably, the refugee admissions from other world regions, with the exception of Europe, are also far below the ceilings established for this fiscal year. 

More on:

Sub-Saharan Africa

Refugees and Migration

U.S. Foreign Policy

Of the 19,000 spots for African refugees, 13,500 will be referred to the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, U.S. embassies, or designated nongovernmental organizations. The remaining 5,500 spots come from groups identified by the U.S. Department of State as in need of resettlement, usually in consultation with other states and the United Nations.

This year, 5,000 spots had been allocated to Congolese living in Rwanda and Tanzania, and the other 500 allocated to asylum seekers from certain countries with immediate family in the United States who themselves have asylum status. At present, those countries are Burundi, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan.  Unfortunately, the breakdown of admissions for the upcoming fiscal year into these three categories is not available.

It is usual for the number of refugees admitted to the United States in a given year to approach or even surpass the ceiling. For example, in the 2016 fiscal year, some 31,000 African refugees were admitted, about four thousand more than the ceiling of 27,500 for that year.

Admission to the United States as a refugee is a difficult and time-consuming process. Eligibility for consideration for admission is determined by U.S. officials on a case by case basis and requires the applicant to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on criteria such as race, religion, or political or social affiliation. Having established eligibility, a refugee applicant is exhaustively vetted by multiple government entities, including the Departments of State and Homeland Security and several security agencies. If approved, the potential refugee is placed on a list and then admitted to the United States when a refugee admissions number becomes available. Generally, nuclear families are admitted together.

Africa has a huge refugee population and an even larger population of internally displaced persons—those who have been forced from home but have not crossed an international border. For those concerned about the relationship of the United States with Africa, the worry is that the reduction in the refugee admissions ceiling will be seen as yet another unfriendly act by the United States to the region.

However, Congress in the past has overturned the executive branch’s proposed refugee admissions ceiling and there is a good chance that it will again in response to the concerns of American citizens and refugee advocates."

Funny how we never hear from the “UK Muslim Council” when it comes to the radical hate-mongering against Jews and Christians & the endless terrorist attacks in both the EU and the UK–and yet–they don’t believe that Preacher Graham should be able to deliver his message of hope against their earnest messages of hate.

And if it is, as they say, that both God and Allah are the same–then why do they fear Graham’s message? We already know the answer to that question. Moreover, the overall tone of this article, as written by the British establishment press, seems biased against Graham in favor of their Muslim masters.

Are they truly cowards?  

If the Brits do snub Graham in allegiance to their Muslim leaders-then almost all hope is lost for the Brits & their sovereignty…

~ Refocus Notes

UK Guardian

Harriet Sherwood Religion correspondent

Britain’s leading Muslim organization has called on the Home Office to refuse a UK visa to a prominent US evangelical preacher with links to Donald Trump and a track record of Islamophobic and homophobic statements.

Franklin Graham, the son of the evangelist Billy Graham, has been invited to preach at a Christian festival in Blackpool this month.

The preacher, who said Trump’s election victory was evidence that “God’s hand” was at work, has called Islam “evil” and “wicked”, claimed Barack Obama’s “problem is that he was born a Muslim” and said Satan was the architect of same-sex marriage and LGBT rights.

The Muslim Council of Britain has joined three MPs, including a government whip, in demanding the Home Office apply its criteria on hate speech to Graham’s visa request.

The MCB said: “In the past, the government has banned individuals whom they claim are ‘not conducive to the public good’. Mr. Graham’s remarks are on record and clearly, demonstrate a hatred for Muslims and other minorities.

“We would expect the government to apply its criteria here. If it does not, it will send a clear message that it is not consistent in challenging all forms of bigotry.”

Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of Tell Mama, which monitors Islamophobia in the UK, said it was shocking that Graham was being given a platform. His views were “regressive and need to be challenged,” he said.

Gordon Marsden, the Labour MP for Blackpool South, said he would write to Sajid Javid, the home secretary, this week to call for Graham to be denied a visa.

“It’s perfectly possible for the government not to admit someone whose presence is not conducive to the public good,” he said. “Graham’s visit to Blackpool is likely to cause considerable offense.”

Franklin Graham

Paul Maynard, the MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and a government whip, and Afzal Khan, the Labour MP for Manchester Gorton, have also opposed the visit.

Graham is scheduled to be the main speaker at the Festival of Hope, which opens at Blackpool’s Winter Gardens conference center on 21 September. The event has been organized by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and is backed by more than 30 local churches of various denominations.

Some churches in the area have objected to Graham’s appearance. Nina Parker, the pastor of Liberty church, which welcomes LGBT worshippers, described Graham’s presence as “extremely destructive” and said it was “causing division between churches and within churches”.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you

 

 

Read more

The Blackpool Methodist Circuit said it “cannot support any preaching or teaching which promotes homophobia or is likely to be damaging to interfaith dialogue”. It declined to support the festival “in the light of various comments made by Franklin Graham in the past”.

The independent evangelical Crossgate church in Preston is one of several churches to have withdrawn support for the festival in recent months. “I believe Franklin Graham will come to teach the gospel, but many people are upset by his comments and I cannot stand by those comments,” pastor Ron Farrington said.

Three Blackpool churches are to hold services specifically welcoming LGBT worshippers over the weekend of Franklin’s visit, and a four-metre carnival model of Jesus wearing a rainbow sash will be paraded through the town centre.

In July, Blackpool Transport and Stagecoach scrapped adverts on their buses promoting Graham’s appearance at the festival. Blackpool Transport cited “heightened tensions” and Stagecoach told the Guardian the adverts were not “consistent with our company values”.

Blackpool Council said it would forward representations and material it had received from opponents of Graham’s visit to the Home Office.

“The council’s position on these matters is robust and clear. We want to tackle discrimination, promote equality and increase respect and understanding between people regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation or any such matter that can be subject to prejudice in our society,” said councilor Maria Kirkland.

She said the council had a contractual obligation to the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association over its booking at the Winter Gardens, but it would make the association aware of the need to comply with UK law.

“If matters are brought to our attention that could constitute incitement to hatred, we will forward these to the relevant public authorities and should this be proved we will not hesitate to terminate this booking,” Kirkland said.

‘Exvangelicals’: why more religious people are rejecting the evangelical label

 

 

Read more

The Anglican bishop of Blackburn, Julian Henderson, whose diocese includes Blackpool, said he held a “neutral position” about Graham’s appearance at the festival, but neither he nor other members of his leadership team would attend the event.

He said: “I must be very clear … I do not support any kind of hate speech, including the language of Islamophobia, Christianophobia or homophobia. There is a difference between having a different point of view and expressing hate. Within the Christian ethic, there is no room for hate of another person and I do not defend the use of such language.”

The home secretary has the power to exclude an individual whose presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good or if their exclusion is justified on public policy grounds.

The Home Office declined to comment on Graham’s visa application. The Festival of Hope did not respond to a request for comment.

Perhaps, but Only If Iran truly wishes to be turned into an elementally-fused radioactive parking lot…

~Refocus Notes

 The Free Beacon

By Adam Kredo

Iranian-backed militants are operating across the United States mostly unfettered, raising concerns in Congress and among regional experts that these “sleeper cell” agents are poised to launch a large-scale attack on the American homeland, according to testimony before lawmakers.

Iranian agents tied to the terror group Hezbollah have already been discovered in the United States plotting attacks, giving rise to fears that Tehran could order a strike inside America should tension between the Trump administration and the Islamic Republic reach a boiling point.

Intelligence officials and former White House officials confirmed to Congress on Tuesday that such an attack is not only plausible but relatively easy for Iran to carry out at a time when the Trump administration is considering abandoning the landmark nuclear deal and reapplying sanctions on Tehran.

There is mounting evidence that Iran poses “a direct threat to the homeland,” according to Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee and chair of its subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence.

A chief concern is “Iranian support for Hezbollah, which is active in the Middle East, Latin America, and here in the U.S., where Hezbollah operatives have been arrested for activities conducted in our own country,” King said, referring the recent arrest of two individuals plotting terror attacks in New York City and Michigan.

“Both individuals received significant weapons training from Hezbollah,” King said. “It is clear Hezbollah has the will and capability.”

After more than a decade of receiving intelligence briefs, King said he has concluded that “Hezbollah is probably the most experienced and professional terrorist organization in the world,” even more so than ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Asked if Iran could use Hezbollah to conduct strikes on the United States, a panel of experts including intelligence officials and former White House insiders responded in the affirmative.

“They are as good or better at explosive devices than ISIS, they are better at assassinations and developing assassination cells,” said Michael Pregent, a former intelligence officer who worked to counter Iranian influence in the region. “They’re better at targeting, better at looking at things,” and they can outsource attacks to Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah is smart,” Pregent said. “They’re very good at keeping their communications secure, keeping their operational security secure, and, again, from a high profile attack perspective, they’d be good at improvised explosive devices.”

Others testifying before Congress agreed with this assessment.

“The answer is absolutely. We do face a threat,” said Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has long tracked Iran’s militant efforts. “Their networks are present in the United States.”

Iran is believed to have an auxiliary fighting force or around 200,000 militants spread across the Middle East, according to Nader Uskowi, a onetime policy adviser to U.S. Central Command and current visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

At least 50 to 60 thousand of these militants are “battle tested” in Syria and elsewhere.

“It doesn’t take many of them to penetrate this country and be a major threat,” Uskowi said. “They can pose a major threat to our homeland.”

Continue Reading