Image: Jamal Khashoggi’s remains were reportedly found in the garden of the Saudi consul’s official residence
Body parts belonging to murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi have been found, according to two Sky sources. The sources have told Sky News the Saudi dissident had been “cut up” and his face “disfigured“. One source also suggested the writer’s remains were discovered in the garden of the Saudi consul general’s Istanbul home – located around 500 metres away from the consulate.
It contradicts the explanation being made by Saudi officials that the body was rolled up in a carpet and handed to a local collaborator who was tasked with disposing of the evidence.
Image: Jamal Khashoggi was last seen entering the Saudi consulate on 2 October
Theresa May’s spokesman said reports of Mr Khashoggi’s body parts being found were “deeply disturbing”.
“The location of Mr Khashoggi’s body is just one of the questions we need answers to and as such we await the full results of the Turkish investigation,”he said.
In a day of fast-moving developments in the case:
:: Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Mr Khashoggi’s killing a premeditated “murder“
:: Mr Erdogan demanded Saudi officials reveal the whereabouts of Mr Khashoggi’s body
:: The dissident’s son met Saudi ruler, King Salman and crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, in Riyadh
:: Turkish media said Mr Khashoggi’s belongings were found in suitcases in a Saudi consulate car
:: Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said he was “deeply concerned”to hear Mr Erdogan call it a premeditated murder.
1:48 Video: Erdogan demands answers in Khashoggi case
In a speech to the country’s parliament, Turkey’s president Erdogan demanded Saudi Arabia hold those responsible to account and asked: “Why has the body of someone who was officially said to be killed not been found yet?”
He did not mention an alleged audio recording that Turkish authorities claim to have of Mr Khashoggi’s death that supposedly confirms he was tortured, killed, had his fingers cut off and was dismembered.
1:14 Video: Saudi minister on ‘abhorrent incident’
The apparent discovery of Mr Khashoggi’s body parts – and Mr Erdogan’s version of events based on what he described as “new evidence and information”– both contradict Saudi Arabia’s explanation for his death.
Mr Khashoggi was a known critic of the Saudi government and crown prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The Turkish president, who had promised the “naked truth” about the killing“, did not mention the crown prince in his speech, though officials linked to the royal have been implicated in it.
0:46 Video: CCTV of ‘suspicious’ Saudi car movement
Saudi Arabia has said the heir-apparent of the world’s top oil exporter was not involved, but any major decision must be signed off by the highest powers within its ruling Al Saud family. It came as video was released showing a meeting between the journalist’s son, Salah Khashoggi, the Gulf kingdom’s ruler, King Salman, and crown prince Mohamed bin Salman, at the Yamama Palace in Riyadh.
0:25 Video: Khashoggi’s son meets Saudi royals
Mr Khashoggi’s brother, Sahel, was also at the meeting at which the king and crown prince expressed their condolences over the Washington Post columnist’s death.
A family friend told the AP news agency that Salah Khashoggi had been under a travel ban and barred from leaving the kingdom since last year as a result of his father’s criticism of the regime.
Saudi authorities have not confirmed the restrictions.
Image: Investigators search suitcases and possessions believed to belong to Jamal Khashoggi
In Turkey media reports that could not be verified said investigators had found Mr Khashoggi’s belongings in a number of suitcases found in a Saudi consulate vehicle in a car park in Istanbul. Local broadcaster Ahaber aired video showing crime scene investigators searching what appeared to be the contents of cases.
I worked in National Security at Breitbart, which made me very grateful to live in America. Every day I covered stories describing actual oppression of females. I bet you anything those females would love to have the cost of their birth control as their only worry.
Those marches made me ashamed of my sex since governments in other countries actually treat its female citizens like second class citizens. I will concentrate on three countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and India.
Saudi Arabia
A major American ally. While the country has slowly started making ways out of the stone age, they still live in one. Saudi law prohibits females from leaving the house without a male guardian. The females cannot travel or even conduct any official business without this guardian’s permission. This guardian must also make medical decisions for the female.
Yes, Leftists. In Saudi Arabia, a male MAKES YOUR MEDICAL DECISION. Last time I checked you guys did not need a male guardian to give you permission to even go to a doctor.
Oh, those disgusting vagina hats you wore? Good luck doing that in Saudi Arabia! Over there, females must keep their bodies covered except for hands and eyes. Now, in some areas a female can have her face uncovered. SO RADICAL, RIGHT?!
Did you enjoy socializing with the males who marched alongside you? In Saudi Arabia, sex segregation is a top priority. In fact, if someone catches you talking to a non-relative male, you can receive charges for adultery or prostitution! In June 2010, the courts sentenced four men and eleven men because they had the nerve for socializing at a party. Yeah, they got lashes and time in jail.
Did you drive to the marches? Because females in Saudi Arabia basically cannot drive. There are no laws, but restrictions basically make it impossible for females to enjoy driving a car. The governments force these citizens to receive a local license to drive and the places do not issue them to females. Rural areas allow a little flexibility.
I saw that the march in DC gave the metro a historic day. Yeah, Saudi Arabia does not like for its females to enjoy public transportation because God forbid they mingle with non-related males. THE HORROR.
I could go on, but let’s move to another country.
Iran
Ironically, females worked hard to overthrow the government in 1979. The result gave females an oppressive government with little rights.
Work in the government? You must abide by the Islamic dress code. The previous government banned the hijab, but this new government forced ALL females to wear it. No choice. So you go from one extreme to the other. How lovely. The government banned females from becoming judges. Females must wear the hijab out in public. Want an education? You have to wear the hijab to school.
Females cannot play sports! To make it worse, females cannot even watch the males play these sports.
Guess what happened in 2015? Iran proposed bills to OUTLAW VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION. Yup! LITERALLY NO BIRTH CONTROL. Females cannot even receive information about ways to prevent pregnancy.
The Comprehensive Population and Exaltation of Family Bill (Bill 315), which is due to be discussed in parliament next month, would further entrench gender-based discrimination, particularly against women who choose not to or are unable to marry or have children.
The bill instructs all private and public entities to prioritize, in sequence, men with children, married men without children and married women with children when hiring for certain jobs. It also makes divorce more difficult and discourages police and judicial intervention in family disputes opening women up to increased risks of domestic violence.
India
India remains one of the most dangerous places on this planet for females. In 2011, a poll placed it at number four. Acid attacks help keep India high in the poll because any female from any class can have this attack, mainly used as revenge. Thing is, many of the attacks go unpunished.
The government outlawed child marriage, but no one enforces it! A family can marry off their young daughter to a disgusting old man. The girl better not fight back or else the family will punish her. Then there are those pesky dowry gifts. If a female violates the marriage contract, husbands have been known to kill or punish the female. Her family rarely comes to her aide because she has shamed them.
In rural areas, females often face punishment if males in their house commit a crime:
In August, village leaders in Uttar Pradesh state allegedly ordered the rape of two Dalit sisters to pay for the “sins” of their brother who had eloped with a higher-caste woman. These unofficial village councils, called Khaps, made up of men from dominant castes who often enjoy political patronage, are known to issue edicts restricting women’s mobility and rights, and condemning couples for marrying outside their caste or religion.
India has registered an almost 800 percent rise in the number of killings in the name of “honour” reported last year, according to figures presented in parliament.
Indian police registered 251 cases of honour killings in 2015, compared with 28 cases reported in 2014 when the government began counting them separately from murder, according to a statement this week by Junior Home Minister Hansraj G Ahir to India’s parliament.
These silly females actually thought they could marry outside of their class or clan! HOW DARE THEY TRY TO HAVE FREEDOM AND CHOOSE THEIR OWN HUSBAND!!! Yes, their families will kill or harm them if they do something like this.
So there you have it, females in America. Keep whining about your birth control and no abortions on demand. You have NO idea what oppression feels like. You have NO idea what it feels like to be treated like a second class citizen. I suggest you study up on the rest of the world and get some perspective before you lecture about the alleged horrible way females are treated in America.
The House on Friday passed legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts, days before the 15th anniversary of the terrorist attacks. The legislation passed unanimously by voice vote, to thunderous applause. The bill, which passed the Senate unanimously in May, now heads to President Obama’s desk, where its future is uncertain.
The White House has hinted strongly it will veto the measure. Obama has lobbied fiercely against it, arguing it could both strain relations with Saudi Arabia and lead to retaliatory legislation overseas against U.S. citizens.
But lingering suspicion over Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attacks and pressure from victims’ families made the bill a popular bipartisan offering on Capitol Hill. The bill’s popularity puts the president in a delicate position. Supporters are hoping Obama will be leery of expending political capital he desperately needs during the lame-duck session. The president is hoping lawmakers will pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and a criminal justice reform measure and confirm Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.
If Obama does choose to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, supporters believe that they have the two-thirds majority needed to override him —a first during his presidency.
“I think we easily get the two-thirds override if the president should veto,”Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who introduced the bill in the Senate, said when the bill cleared the upper chamber in the spring.
But many on Capitol Hill do not believe that the veto is a done deal. The White House has not issued an official position on the bill and spokesmen have been careful with their language, stopping short of issuing a full veto threat.
“We have serious concerns with the bill as written,”a White House official said Wednesday.
“We believe there needs to be more careful consideration of the potential unintended consequences of its enactment before the House considers the legislation,”the official said. “We would welcome opportunities to further engage with the Congress on that discussion.”The president has 10 days to either sign or reject the legislation before it becomes law.
Supporters of the legislation see it as a moral imperative.
“The victims of 9-11 and other terrorist attacks on US soil have suffered much pain and heartache, but they should not be denied justice,” Schumer said in a statement Wednesday.
Under current U.S. law, victims may sue a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, like Iran. The bill would allow citizens to sue countries without that designation —like Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 hailed from Saudi Arabia. Critics have long suspected that the kingdom’s government may have either directly or indirectly supported the attacks.
Congress in July released 28 previously secret pages detailing suspicious Saudi ties to the 9/11 hijackers, but the report failed to provide a smoking gun. House Intelligence Committee leaders have cautioned that the findings were preliminary. The 9/11 Commission report said that neither the Saudi government “as an institution”nor its senior officials funded the attackers.
Saudi officials have for years denied that their government had any role in plotting the attacks, and the Saudi government has led a quiet campaign in Washington to kill the legislation.
Despite its popularity in Congress, some prominent national security advisers have also pilloried the bill.
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton and ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, both of whom served under former President George W. Bush, this week warned that the legislation “is far more likely to harm the United States than bring justice against any sponsor of terrorism.”
President Obama is facing a dilemma over legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts.
The House rallied behind the legislation on Friday, passing it by unanimous voice vote. The Senate had already passed the same legislation unanimously. Obama has fiercely opposed the bill, arguing it could both strain relations with Saudi Arabia and also lead to retaliatory legislation overseas against U.S. citizens. The Saudi government has led a quiet campaign in Washington to kill the legislation. Those efforts have been fruitless in Congress, however.
The legislation has broad support from both parties, and Congress could override an Obama veto for the first time if he rejects the legislation. Such an outcome would undoubtedly embarrass Obama and divide Democrats ahead of the 2016 elections and a crucial lame-duck session of Congress.
Friday’s vote in the House was heavy with symbolism, taking place on the eve of the 15th anniversary of Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. “I think the pressure is the vote,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), an original backer of the bill and one of its 29 Democratic co-sponsors.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are unsure whether Obama will actually use his veto pen on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. “I presume they would have to think very carefully about a veto because it might very well be overridden,”said Nadler. To override the president, supporters would need a two-thirds majority in each chamber.
“I think the votes will be there to override it,”said Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who introduced the bill in the House. The White House is clearly aware of the dicey political waters in which it is sitting.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supports the bill, as does Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is expected to lead Senate Democrats in the next Congress. Democrats note that the White House has chosen its words carefully when discussing how it will handle the bill.
“I don’t take the administration’s stated objections as a presidential veto threat,”said Democratic lobbyist Jack Quinn, who is working with 9/11 victims families backing the bill. “There is thus ample room here for the president to sign JASTA or let it become law without his signature.”
For months, the White House has lobbied against the measure and strongly hinted that Obama will nix it. But officials have stopped short of issuing a full veto threat.
“We have serious concerns with the bill as written,”a White House official said Wednesday,
“We believe there needs to be more careful consideration of the potential unintended consequences of its enactment before the House considers the legislation,”the official said. “We would welcome opportunities to further engage with the Congress on that discussion.”
Previous revisions to the Senate bill in May did not assuage the administration’s concerns, and it’s not clear how the legislation could be changed to win over Obama. White House press secretary Josh Earnest has repeatedly said it would be “difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill,”but has not said it’s impossible. Obama has rarely been more alone than he is now in a policy debate. Vetoing the legislation would underline a disagreement with congressional Democrats and Clinton, who Obama hopes will succeed him in the White House.
“It would [surprise] me if she and the president found themselves at odds on this important anti-terrorism legislation,”said Quinn.
The White House hoped to have Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in its corner after he expressed reservations over the measure this spring. But pressure from bill supporters has mounted on Ryan and other GOP leaders to move forward.
Under Obama, U.S. foreign policy has pivoted away from Saudi Arabia, straining ties with the kingdom. Saudi Arabia fiercely opposed the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran. The Saudis have warned of further strain on its relationship with the U.S. if the 9/11 legislation becomes law. Officials have reportedly threatened to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets in order to protect them from being frozen by court rulings, although economists doubt they would follow through. Victims families have long sought to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for the attacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and there have long been rumors about ties between al-Qaeda and the government in Riyadh.
But bill opponents point out that 28 declassified pages of a congressional report released over the summer did not contain a smoking gun proving senior Saudi officials had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton and ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, both of whom served under President George W. Bush, this week warned that the legislation “is far more likely to harm the United States than bring justice against any sponsor of terrorism.”
“There is already a law that permits U.S. citizens to sue any country our government has designated a state sponsor of terrorism, such as Iran,” they wrote in The Wall Street Journal. “JASTA, however, does not require a prior U.S. government designation, bypassing a critical safeguard to allow plaintiffs to get at the Saudis—and also setting a precedent for suits against other countries.”
If Obama vetoed the bill, he’d be going to bat for the Saudi regime — while taking on 9/11 victims’ families and large majorities in both chambers.
“I don’t think they’ll veto it — but they may veto it on the idea that they could say to the Saudis, ‘We’re in good faith and Congress is crazy,’ and do that as a basis to keep their relations with the Saudis,”said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), another original co-sponsor.
Some are asking whether Obama wants to expend political capital it desperately needs during the lame-duck session. The president is hoping lawmakers will pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, a criminal-justice reform measure and confirm Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.
“They don’t want to pick a fight with the Democrats now,”Nadler said of the White House.
Encouraged by rising, bipartisan support for a resolution urging President Obama to declassify 28 pages said to link Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 hijackers, the leaders of Capitol Hill’s declassification drive have now introduced a resolution directing the leaders of the House intelligence committee to take matters into their own hands.
Introduced Monday, House Resolution 779 directs the chair and ranking member of the House intelligence committee—Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff, respectively—to declassify the 28 pages by publishing them in the Congressional Record under the protection of the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.
Congressman Walter Jones introduced the resolution along with original cosponsors Stephen Lynch and Thomas Massie. The same trio is the driving force behind House Resolution 14, which urges the president to release the pages that comprise the final chapter in the report of a 2002 congressional intelligence inquiry. Introduced last year, HRes 14 has seen a surge in support following an April 60 Minutes report on the 28 pages, and now has 70 cosponsors.
“I have read these pages and can say that while their release will not harm national security, the contents are critical to our foreign policy moving forward…That is why I have introduced a resolution that would enable the House Committee on Intelligence to declassify the 28 pages,”said Jones in a press release issued today.
Committee Leaders Support Declassification
Rep. Devin Nunes
In April, both Nunes and Schiff voiced their support for releasing the 28 pages. Nunes said “the benefits of publishing this information would outweigh any potential damage to America’s national security,”and Schiff told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, “They should be released and I think, as is often the case, the speculation about what they contain is more damaging in fact than the contents.”
H.Res.779 has been referred to the House rules committee. The committee’s ranking member, Louise Slaughter, is a cosponsor of the resolution urging the president to declassify the pages. The resolution’s preamble notes that the CIA has acknowledged that the 28 pages are the property of Congress and that the Supreme Court “upheld the constitutional prerogative of Members of Congress or committees of Congress to disclose classified information” by way of the Speech or Debate Clause.
This new legislative action comes as an intelligence community declassification review of the 28 pages is expected to wrap up in the next few weeks.
The White House said it ordered the review in the summer of 2014. Skeptical that a review of just 28 pages could truly take two years and counting, many observers—including 9/11 family members and victims—point to the delay as signaling the Obama administration’s desire to put off a resolution of the issue as long as possible.
Former Sen. Bob Graham
The delay strategy grew untenable in April when the 60 Minutes report spawned fresh media attention, dozens of newspaper editorials, heightened citizen interest and an increase in legislator requests to read the secret pages. Soon after the 60 Minutes segment aired, former senator Bob Graham said that a Department of Homeland Security advisor told him to expect a decision in June.
However, confusion has mounted over what exactly will happen at the end of that review. In a May meeting with proponents of the pages’ release, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reportedly voiced an expectation that the president would turn the matter back over to the Congress. If that is indeed the White House’s intention, it could represent a new means of stalling the release of a document that, according to Graham, “point(s) a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier”of the 9/11 attacks. H.Res. 779 addresses that possibility head-on.
A New Angle on Speech or Debate Clause
The drive to declassify the 28 pages has spanned 13 years; throughout that time, many citizens have called for members of Congress to declassify the 28 pages by entering them into the congressional record under the protection from prosecution provided by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.
As we reported earlier this month, one of those advocating that avenue of declassification is former senator Mike Gravel, who used it to release the “Pentagon Papers,” a secret government history of the Vietnam War.
In his own declassification feat, Gravel had something that individual members of Congress lack where the 28 pages are concerned: physical custody of the document. The 28 pages are kept in a secure facility in the basement of the Capitol, precluding Jones, Lynch, Massie or other members of Congress from entering them into the record themselves.
Recognizing that, House Resolution 779 challenges those with greater dominion over the 28 pages—the chair and ranking member of the House intelligence committee—to do for Congress what rank-and-file members cannot do on their own.
Apart from the Speech or Debate Clause, both the House and Senate have rules by which either body, acting alone, can declassify information, even over the objection of the president. In both houses, the initiation of that process begins in the intelligence committee, but also entails seeking the president’s opinion and then a majority vote of the chamber to override it, if necessary.
In opting instead for a Speech or Debate Clause approach, Jones, Lynch and Massie are pursuing a route that bypasses the president and gives Congress an opportunity to assert its own authority by flexing a rarely-used muscle.
A Multi-Purpose Tactic
In the widening, multi-front battle to secure the release of the 28 pages, House Resolution 779 could serve two purposes.
First, the prospect of a congressional declassification of the 28 pages adds a new variable for Obama to weigh as he considers his own decision to declassify the 28 pages.
Embedded in his pending decision is yet another question: If the pages are released, what information, if any, should continue to remain secret? Knowing that the House intelligence committee could later release additional details he chose to conceal puts additional pressure on the president to be more liberal in his declassification. If he attempts to cater to Saudi Arabia or other interested parties by leaving damning details secret, he could face criticism and questioning of his motives if and when those details come out later.
Second, the new resolution also serves as a Plan B: Should the president decide not to release the 28 pages, to do so with heavy redactions, or turn the issue back to Capitol Hill, Congress would be poised to deliver transparency to the American people on its own.
“At a minimum, the draft resolution tends to maintain a drumbeat of pressure on the issue and makes it a tad more likely that the administration will act to release the material,”said Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, in an email to 28Pages.org. “Whether the resolution does more than that depends on what kind of reception it receives in the House.”
The development was applauded by Sharon Premoli, who endured a harrowing escape from the World Trade Center on 9/11: “I think it is unconscionable that it has taken this administration 8 years to read 28 pages and to make a decision. Anything that can move congress to declassify the 28 pages is a good thing and I support it 100 percent.”
Investigative journalist and Hoover Institution media fellow Paul Sperry appeared on Breitbart News Daily with host Stephen K. Bannon on Monday morning to talk about the potential release of the “28 Pages” of long-classified documents that may demonstrate Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
Sperry, author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington, published an article in the New York Post this weekend about “how the U.S. covered up the Saudi role in 9/11.” In that article, Sperry discusses many interviews with intelligence and law-enforcement officers who say “virtually every road” from the 9/11 attacks “led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles” — but investigators were constantly told to back off from pursuing those leads.
On Breitbart News Daily, Sperry said his book Infiltration documents “how the Saudi machine has financed a number of front organizations,” including — but not limited to — radical mosques. He expected the infamous “28 Pages” to fit neatly with the many other classified documents he reviewed when writing the book.
He thought the Saudis probably shared that expectation, given their surprisingly blunt threats to wage economic warfare against the United States if the documents are declassified.
“It’s an empty threat, but it shows just how worried they are, that this information is going to get out there, and they’re going to be held liable,” he said, adding that he’s been told “there’s enough information in those 28 pages to bring indictments against Saudi officials.”
Sperry emphasized the importance of both releasing the 28 Pages and passing legislation that would allow 9/11 families to use the declassified information, by filing suit against the Saudis involved in the attacks.
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
Family
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
Military
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Ann Coulter
Conseritive Political Articles and Discussions
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
1:48 Video: Erdogan demands answers in Khashoggi case
1:14 Video: Saudi minister on ‘abhorrent incident’
3:03 Video:‘ Saudi double disguised as Khashoggi’
0:46 Video: CCTV of ‘suspicious’ Saudi car movement
0:25 Video: Khashoggi’s son meets Saudi royals
By Katie Bo Williams – 
