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.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

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.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

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.