top of page
Search

Israel's war on MAGA

  • Dagny
  • 23 minutes ago
  • 16 min read

Tucker just posted an interview where he looks at the possibility of demonic possession of Trump:


Western governments have a remarkable tendency to act against their own people’s interests. Bad judgment could explain this phenomenon, but something deeper may also be at play.


What if supernatural forces are pulling the strings? Everyone knows humans can sell their souls to demons in exchange for earthly power. Are nations able to do the same?


Filmmaker and ex-freemason Sean Stone believes they are, and his theory could explain a lot about Washington. Stone joined today’s episode of The Tucker Carlson Show to explain how history illuminates the presence of the supernatural in geopolitics, what feeds evil spirits, what lies in the dark corners of freemasonry, and more. Watch here.


For a Christian, that is quite reasonable given everything that has happened.


It has to be pretty bad for Tucker, a deeply faithful MAGA person to consider that a possibility... Yes, its that bad.




Charlie Kirk on Massie

Erika Kirk’s TPUSA will not be endorsing Thomas Massie despite Massie being among Charlie’s favorite Congressmen.




🗣 ‘I’m the one they can’t bully’: Massie fires back as AIPAC scrambles to buy his seat

Thomas Massie, locked in a congressional primary in Kentucky against a fellow Republican endorsed by Trump, says the Zionist lobby AIPAC has dumped “another $3 million” into his race.

💬 “They're trying to buy a seat. Miriam Adelson and Paul Singer have dumped money in here,” says Massie, a vocal critic of Israel's lobbying.

🗣 “I'm the one they haven't been able to bully, so they're putting all the brunt and the force on me. But you can tell that I'm ahead in the polls and they're desperate.”

👍 Boost us | Chat | @geopolitics_prime




Thomas Massie says his opponent, Ed Gallrein, might not even be a real person and compared his campaign to the one Joe Biden ran against President Trump. Massie says



🔍 Tucker Carlson nukes ‘teeth-bared oligarchy’ trying to crush Rep. Massie for exposing Epstein class

Pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson is doing whatever it takes to take the seat away from Rep. Thomas Massie because he “committed the crime of describing how things actually work in the US Congress,” says Tucker Carlson.  

💬 “If they are successful in crushing a man purely for the crime of telling the truth about them, about how they operate, about the nature of the Epstein class, then you have to wonder, why are we voting in the first place?” he asks.

He slams this as “just straight up teeth-bared oligarchy,” adding that in Washington “the only people who are punished are those who told the truth.”

👍 Boost us | Chat | @geopolitics_prime









Thomas Massie accuses Fox News of interfering in his election through an alleged quid pro quo scheme, claiming the network blacklisted him to protect its privileged access to the White House. Massie says Fox News has refused to invite him on for the past 18 months in exchange for exclusive access and insider scoops. “They’ve got a monopoly on the screens in a lot of Republican households.” “They need access during this Trump presidency.”







THROWBACK: ‘I can paint you as a monster’ — Netanyahu says out loud how he shapes narratives


Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu exposed how easily he can shape the spin cycle in his first US television interview since the Iran war erupted — a 60 Minutes interview with Major Garrett.


👁 This laid bare the playbook of media manipulation that modern power brokers rely on — perception is manufactured, not discovered.


Netanyahu framed it in the context of socially media and Israel's reputational decline, blaming the “eighth front” of the war — platforms that shape public opinion, like X.


🤔 For those in power, phones, feeds, and algorithms are no longer just communication tools — they are infrastructure in the information war.

Megan Kelly 



Ultra MAGA Paxton had to fight Trump to become the nominee for senator.




Apparently the Deep State's plan is for either JD Vance or Marco Rubio to become the next President. After that, they could be killed off and Erika Kirk succeeds them as the 49th President of the United States. I was alerted to the websites above through a message in this post.

Here are the links to the websites in question.


Polymarket Cashing in:


🇻🇪🇺🇸❗ The U.S. Department of Justice has arrested a U.S. Army Special Forces soldier who allegedly took part in the operation to capture Nicolás Maduro.

He allegedly placed roughly $33,000 in bets on a prediction market that Maduro would be removed from office by January 31, 2026, as well as on a potential U.S. invasion of Venezuela, netting more than $400,000 in profit.



AI and the possibly demonic goal of the data centers...





Tucker:

Americans are overwhelmingly against the artificial intelligence revolution. So why do our leaders refuse to consider slowing it down?


The answer is simple: they do not care what regular people think. The ruling class wants more AI, therefore the country is getting more AI. It is that simple. Public sentiment is deeply irrelevant.


Take Utah as an example. Despite civilian opposition, Kevin O’Leary is building a 40,000-acre data center in the desert state, and he says anyone upset about it is probably working for China. O’Leary joined last night’s live episode of The Tucker Carlson Show for a debate on his vision for an AI-powered U.S., whether having better AI than the Chinese matters, why regular people did not get the chance to vote on his project, and more. Watch here.



Not necessarily evil, other than it puts a powerful AI tool on your system's drive without you knowing about it -- a tool that other programs can make use of, in part because "There’s even an API that developers can access to use the on-device Nano model for AI-powered features."

Even if you aren’t using Google Gemini, it might be using your device. Security researcher Alexander Hanff, also known as “That Privacy Guy,” recently reported that Google’s widely used Chrome web browser is quietly storing an on-device AI model without explicitly asking for user permission.








🇺🇸 If you thought the DoorDash lady who delivered McDonald’s to the White House today was just some random, authentic grandma… well… she wasn’t.

Here’s Sharon Simmons [last video] in August 2025 at a hearing in Nevada, talking about how the “One Big Beautiful Bill” made a difference in her life.

It’s all fake.


Trump's Justice Department is considering settling a $10 billion lawsuit Trump has against the IRS, potentially resulting in a $10 billion payout to Trump from taxpayer funds, according to CNN.

YES, Trump's own Justice Department is negotiating to pay Trump $10 billion of taxpayer money to settle a lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS.

The conflict of interest is staggering. The President controls the DOJ while the DOJ is settling a case with the President. The settlement is paid by taxpayers.

This would be the largest self-dealing scandal in American history, if it happens. But the fact that it's even being "considered" tells you everything about how power works when institutions lose independence.






Trump:

"Maryland just had 500,000 Fake Mail-In Ballots revealed." "We cannot, as a Country, put up with this any longer!!! Voter I.D., and Proof of Citizenship, must be approved, NOW. Crooked Mail-In Voting must be stopped!!! PUT IT ALL IN THE HOUSING AND FISA BILLS. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" "THE SAVE AMERICA ACT MUST BE PASSED, NOW. Use the Housing and FISA Bills to get it done!"





RFK Jr just explained that doctors will now get paid to take patients OFF unnecessary and harmful medications through a new policy called “deprescribing.”



$1.8 billion of U.S. taxpayer money will be sent to the United Nations to fund emergency humanitarian assistance. This comes on top of the $2 billion already pledged in December 2025. They told us USAID was dismantled to cut waste and https://t.co/qEuI5yOD2r" / X



The court’s 2025–2026 term is expected to end in June with a series of rulings that could impact social issues and President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The last scheduled oral argument was held on April 29; the justices considered whether Trump wrongfully terminated deportation protections for thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals. That decision and a ruling on Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship could influence immigration policy for decades to come.

So far, the court has already issued opinions on Trump’s tariffs and redistricting. Its remaining decisions could change how elections are conducted, as well as alter the balance of power between Congress and the president.

Here are the main decisions expected before the end of June.

Birthright Citizenship

A key part of Trump’s immigration agenda has been his attempt to limit who receives American citizenship. The 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Historically, the executive branch interpreted this amendment to grant citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants. Trump changed this interpretation on his first day in office, passing an executive order stating that the amendment only applied to children who had at least one parent with citizenship or lawful permanent residency.

In Trump v. Barbara, the president asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a federal judge blocked his executive order. During oral argument on April 1, the Justice Department said that parents should be legal residents or have some kind of allegiance to the United States before their children receive citizenship. The justices, however, seemed skeptical and indicated they may view citizenship more broadly.

Girls Sports

Another highly anticipated decision focuses on Idaho’s and West Virginia’s laws preventing males from participating in girls and women’s sports. Federal appeals courts blocked those laws, stating that they conflict with another portion of the 14th Amendment known as the equal protection clause. That clause generally prohibits laws that classify or discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics. The appeals courts said the state laws conflict with that clause because they classify individuals on the basis of their sex and “transgender status.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also said West Virginia’s law violated Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. That law prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education.

The justices heard oral argument in January for the cases, known as Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Overall, the justices seemed inclined to uphold the states’ laws.

Monsanto’s Weedkiller

Monsanto’s herbicide, known as Roundup, has cost the company millions of dollars following lawsuits alleging one of its ingredients, glyphosate, increases cancer risk. One of those lawsuits made it to the Supreme Court in April and could determine how much Monsanto has to pay in future lawsuits. The case, Monsanto v. Durnell, focused on a Missouri jury that held the company liable for not warning about glyphosate’s purported risks. Monsanto told the Supreme Court that the jury’s verdict was based on a faulty interpretation of the law. The jury said Monsanto was liable under a Missouri law that requires warnings for consumer products. Monsanto argued that the jury interpreted the law in a way that conflicted with another law passed at the federal level.

The Supreme Court’s eventual decision is expected to touch on a legal doctrine known as preemption, which says that federal law takes precedence over state law when there is a conflict between the two. In this case, Monsanto said the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act should take precedence. That law gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate chemicals such as glyphosate. Because the agency already approved glyphosate’s use and didn’t require additional warnings, Monsanto said Missouri couldn’t require more either. Durnell argued that the verdict didn’t conflict with federal law and that Missouri should be able to protect its citizens’ health.

Trump’s Ability to Fire Bureaucrats

One of the main legal complaints leveled during Trump’s second administration was that he fired high-level bureaucrats without good reason. Leaders of so-called “independent” agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), sued, alleging that Trump didn’t show the type of cause federal law required of presidents when firing officials. In Trump v. Slaughter, Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a lower court blocked his attempt to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The justices seemed inclined in December 2025 to not just allow her firing, but also expand the authority presidents have in removing bureaucrats like her. Their eventual decision could overturn a 90-year-old precedent from Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. In that 1935 case, the Supreme Court held that former President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrongly fired a former FTC commissioner and that Congress could restrict his ability to do so.

The Trump administration argues that the Constitution gives the president greater authority and that Congress cannot use laws such as the FTC Act to restrict his ability to remove bureaucrats.

Fed Independence

Like the FTC Act, another law, known as the Federal Reserve Act, said presidents couldn’t remove high-level officials without cause. That was the law that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook cited when she challenged Trump’s attempt to fire her last year. Trump removed Cook while citing allegations that she committed mortgage fraud, something she has denied. During oral argument in January, the Supreme Court wrestled with multiple questions: whether Trump gave Cook enough due process before firing her, how the firing would impact the economy, and how Trump’s view of his authority would impact the Federal Reserve’s independence.

Overall, the justices seemed inclined to side with Cook. The case, Trump v. Cook, followed other decisions in which the Supreme Court suggested that the Federal Reserve was more independent than agencies such as the FTC and that its members therefore deserved additional protections.

Definition of ‘Election Day’

The 2020 presidential election reinvigorated debate over mail-in ballots, a controversial method of voting that Trump and others argue is vulnerable to fraud. Multiple states, including Mississippi, have allowed mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day as long as they are postmarked on or before that day. Trump and the Republican National Committee argue that practice violates a federal law that defines Election Day as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.”

When the case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, reached the Supreme Court, the Trump administration supported the committee’s position.

“‘Election day’ was the day all voting needed to be completed; and the act of voting was not complete until a ballot had been officially received,” the Justice Department told the court. Mississippi argues the law simply requires that voters make their choice by Election Day, not that their ballots are counted.

During oral argument in March, the justices seemed more likely to side with the committee. “We’re moving in this direction,” Justice Samuel Alito said. “We don’t have Election Day anymore. We have election month or we have election months.”

Deportation Protections

The court’s most recent oral argument focused on the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of deportation protections for thousands of Haitians and Syrians. “Temporary protected status” prevents nationals of certain countries from being removed if conditions in their home countries would make returning unsafe. Under President Barack Obama, the department granted that status for Haiti, which was impacted by the 2010 earthquake, and Syria, which has seen ongoing political turmoil and armed conflict.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated those protections last year, prompting lawsuits and federal judges’ orders blocking those terminations.

The justices heard oral argument in the cases, known as Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, on April 29. They considered whether those judges exceeded their authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which generally prohibits judicial review of the department’s determinations about temporary protected status.

Lower court judges, however, said the administration still had to follow certain procedures, but that it didn’t when it terminated those protections. The justices also considered a federal judge’s argument that the administration likely acted with racial animus toward Haitians and therefore violated the Constitution. Campaign Finance

How much protection does the First Amendment afford political parties when they spend money on campaigns? That’s one of the questions the Supreme Court is expected to address in a case called National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee. The case originated with a lawsuit brought by then-Senate candidate JD Vance, who argued that Congress violated the First Amendment with the Federal Election Campaign Act. That law restricts how much political parties and candidates’ campaigns can coordinate their spending.

The Supreme Court upheld that restriction in 2001 on the basis that coordination opened a backdoor for corruption. In its upcoming decision, the court could maintain its prior position or overrule itself while siding with Republicans.

IQ in Death Penalty Cases

The Supreme Court held in 2002 that states could not execute criminals who were mentally or intellectually disabled. Doing so, a majority of the court said, would violate the Eighth Amendment’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment. Since that decision, lower courts have wrestled with how to determine whether someone is intellectually disabled. In December 2025, the court heard oral argument in Hamm v. Smith, which centered on a convicted murderer who received five IQ scores: 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74. All results are near the 70-point benchmark Alabama has set for deciding whether someone is intellectually disabled. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reviewed the case, it said the margin of error could have meant Joseph Clifton Smith’s actual IQ was below 70. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on whether the 11th Circuit required too much certainty and should have upheld the man’s death sentence.



The Shocking Impact of Personal Influence

It‘s easy to underestimate our effect on others. We go about our business in our own world, and assume that everyone else is going about theirs.

New parents can be stunned sometimes to hear their own words coming out of their kid’s mouths; their own actions being recreated by their children. But our impact on each other runs deep, and extends far beyond our immediate family.

Those we are close to, and even those people who are three degrees of separation away from those we are close to – friends of friends of friends – are our sphere of influence… and we are theirs. What we say and do makes a real impact on those around us, and even on those a moderate distance away.

Appreciating this can be a great motivator for living our best life.

In studies by Christakis and Fowler, drawing from the Framingham Heart Study subjects, they found just how powerful our personal contacts with people can be. Here are some examples:

  • For every happy friend we have, our likelihood of being happy ourselves increases by 9%.

  • Our chances of becoming obese increases by 57% if we have a friend who becomes obese.

  • Among pairs of adult siblings, if one sibling becomes obese the chance that the other will become obese increases by 40%

  • If one spouse becomes obese the likelihood that the other spouse will become obese increases by 37%

That’s for our immediate connections; in other studies, they found that we can have a remarkable effect on others even several steps removed from our direct contact:

  • If our friend’s friend’s friend quit smoking, we are much more likely to quit smoking ourselves.

  • Even happy people we’ve never met, three degrees of separation away, have a positive effect on our own happiness.

Good and bad behaviors pass from friend to friend; we influence each other’s health and happiness just by our social interactions.

But the impact of our behavior in one arena is particularly significant… shocking even.

You might be familiar with the experiments that Stanley Milgram chronicled in his book, Obedience to Authority. Milgram sought to study the degree to which people would follow the dictates of an authority figure into fairly brutal territory.

In these experiments, subjects entered a room in which there was an authority figure wearing an official white lab coat. The subject was then instructed that his or her job was to administer a shock to a person in the next room whenever that person answered a question incorrectly. The first subject – the one giving the (pretend) shock – had no idea that the person to be shocked was in on the experiment and was just acting.

The subjects thought they were there to assist the experimenter, but in truth, they were the ones who were being studied. In front of them was a panel of switches marked with increasing voltage from 15 to 450 volts. Toward the upper range of voltage the switchboard was marked, “Danger, severe shock,” and then, past that, “XXX.”

As the shocks were given, whenever the subjects would look to the authority figure, or question what they were supposed to do, the authority simply answered emphatically, “The experiment requires that you continue.”

As the subjects administered the shocks, the pretend subjects from the other room expressed pain, pleaded to be released, screamed, and then finally yelled loudly that they had heart pains. Once they reached 330 volts, there was just silence.

What percentage of subjects do you think continued on through the expressions of pain, the screams, and the ominous silence through the full range of shocks?

If you’re not familiar with this study, I doubt that you would guess correctly. Milgram himself expected very few. But fully 65% administered the full range of electric shock – past the danger zone, through the XXX, all the way to 450 volts.

That’s pretty awful. But now comes the part where we influence each other, because there’s a fascinating, inspiring, and little known facet to this study: When subjects first witnessed another subject refuse to continue the experiment, 90% of those subjects would then refuse to comply with the authority themselves, when it was their turn.

Think about that again for a moment: When people see us refuse to comply with an authority trying to get us to do harm, only 10% of those people will go on to comply with that authority – when two-thirds would have done so before.

That is a huge impact.

In practice, what this means is that people are watching. What we do in our daily lives can have a very positive – or negative – influence on the people around us. This makes a strong case for asserting our own leadership and personal virtue, to say the least.

When we return that extra change from a miscalculated bill, when we don’t go along with others in our group who are willing to fudge data, or appease a bully, or gossip, or intentionally hurt somebody, other people are influenced, and that can make a real impact.

When we choose to behave with honor and integrity – particularly when other people aren’t – somebody will likely notice, and may very well make a different and betterdecision him or herself as a result.

When we behave with good manners, expressing gratitude, treating everyone we see with respect and goodwill, that makes others feel better, and it also makes it easier for them to pass that attitude along.

We can worry (justifiably) about the effect of media, social media, politicians, and other forces that are often outside of our control; but It is in our day-to-day lives where most of us make our greatest impact, and that impact is substantial. When we decide to not go along with the negative status quo, we have a much greater influence than those who do.

Live with courage and integrity in your everyday life – be strong, kind, effective, grateful, forgiving, honorable, and polite – and set the example for others to follow.

Our effect on those we touch goes much deeper than we might imagine… sometimes shockingly so.



 
 
 

Comments

Subscribe

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin

©2019 by Relevances. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page