Carlson vs. The CIA

Reports are circulating that Tucker Carlson may be under investigation by the U.S. government for regularly communicating with Iranian officials. In fact, in a recent social media post, Carlson said himself that the CIA has been spying on him and reading his texts to prepare a criminal referral against him.

It is well-known that Carlson is a vocal opponent of U.S. intervention in Iran. He met with President Trump at the White House multiple times leading up to the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes against the Iranian regime. There are questions on whether he shared information he heard at the White House with his contacts in Iran.

I hope that is not true. But I am also deeply disturbed by and completely reject the narrative he has adopted on Israel, America, and Christians who support Israel. 

Carlson has described Christian Zionism as “a dangerous heresy within Christianity” and “a brain virus.” He said he “despises Christian Zionists more than anyone else on earth.” He also said that it is “clearly evil” for Christians to support the construction of the Third Temple in Jerusalem. Since when is Tucker in charge of telling the people of Israel where and when they should construct a temple?

I am an enthusiastic Christian Zionist who loves Israel and believes the Jewish people have a right to their homeland in the covenant land God gave to Abraham and his descendants. I believe Christians should stand with Israel and the Jewish people, “the apple of God’s eye.” 

Without Judaism, there would be no Christianity. Christ was a Jew. Mary and Joseph were Jews. The disciples were Jews. 

The United States and Israel are the twin pillars of Judeo-Christian civilization. We are standing together against a fanatical cult of death worshipers who treat women like cattle, oppress minorities, and threaten free speech and religious liberty. 

Siding with Israel over radical Islamic supremacists like the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah isn’t a “brain virus.” It’s a no-brainer.

Media Malfeasance

After a synagogue in West Bloomfield, Michigan, dodged a bullet and a truck full of explosives, the Muslim mayor of Dearborn Heights, where the Islamic synagogue attacker lived, issued a very weak statement condemning the violence. Among other things, the mayor said that the Islamic terrorist had family members who were killed recently in Lebanon by an Israeli airstrike.

I noticed that in many of the news stories I read, the American media just reported the mayor’s statement as a fact, as if it is perfectly natural for a Muslim in America to target Jewish children if his relatives in Lebanon are killed in a war with Israel. The implication, of course, is that his relatives were innocent of wrong doing.

If a family member dies in Hezbollah’s war against Israel, the logical reaction is not to go to your local synagogue to massacre 140 Jewish children. That is the very definition of antisemitism—if you don’t like Israeli policy, you kill your local Jew. That is evil, disgusting, and beyond unacceptable. The mayor of Dearborn Heights ought to resign.

But now Israel has confirmed the mayor’s statement—the synagogue attacker’s brother did die in an airstrike in Lebanon. That happened because he was a Hezbollah holy warrior in charge of one of the rocket units that routinely fired at civilian targets in Israel. 

Now, when that was reported, the media wrote, “Israel claims” or “Israel alleges” that the synagogue attacker’s brother was a Hezbollah commander. In other words, nothing that Israel said about this was taken by the media at face value. Only what the Muslim mayor said about the motives of the wannabe Jew-killer was accepted as “truth.” 

Defunding Airport Police

This past weekend witnessed another huge mess at major U.S. airports. Travel experts are warning that if you’re taking a flight through a major airline hub, you need to get there four to five hours before your flight if you want to be sure to catch your plane. Why? Because our airport police have been working without pay for a month now, and many are calling out sick and even quitting.

During previous government shutdowns, Republicans have always been blamed because they don’t like big government. It’s easy for Democrats and their media allies to convince people that Republicans are trying to cut spending, cut Obamacare, or some other government program. 

Then, they immediately jump to scare tactics, saying, “You’re not going to get your Social Security check. You’re not going to get your VA benefits. Your school might have to close. The national parks will be closed because of those evil Republicans.”

But Democrats are entirely responsible for this current shutdown, and not one “mainstream” media outlet will say that. If they say anything at all, it is to blame both sides. “Why can’t these politicians just sit down and work things out?” 

This is very simple. Over the years, the main Democrat Party talking point was we should never hold government funding hostage over policy disputes. You settle policy disputes separately through negotiations and legislation. You don’t say, “We’re not going to fund the Department of Homeland Security unless federal immigration policy changes.” 

But that’s exactly what Democrats are doing now—and in a time of heightened terrorist threats, as we’ve seen in the last month. Yet virtually nobody in the “mainstream” media is blaming them for this. 

The Border Patrol, federal immigration police, and other immigration agencies got a huge funding boost in the One Big Beautiful Bill. The things that are not funded are what you’re seeing with your own eyes, including our airport police. They are the first line of defense at our airport. And, as usual, when Democrats see police, they want to defund them. 

That’s what Democrats have demanded in recent years. They want to defund your local police, our federal immigration police, and now our airport police. 

FEMA is another hostage of the latest Schumer shutdown. That means disaster relief is not being funded as huge storms bear down on the Midwest and the Atlantic seaboard. If Republicans were doing this, there would be rioting, stoked by the media. 

Every Republican who goes on TV for an interview about any subject—Iran, the economy, housing, anything—should begin by saying:

“Before I answer that question, I just want to say to the American people, I hope you understand that the Democrat Party is undermining the safety of the American people. And if you’re stuck in a massive line at the airport right now and worried about missing your flight, that is all on the shoulders of the Democrat Party.”

God forbid, if there is a major terrorist attack that takes the lives of countless Americans. There is one party that should be held responsible. 

Left-wing Lunacy

The Christian owners of a female-only Korean spa are suing Washington state because the Democrat-dominated legislature believes men claiming to be women should be allowed to expose themselves at a women’s spa. Sadly, the case has not gone well for these Christian business owners. They just lost at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is totally insane! Where are the feminists who claim to care about women’s rights, women’s privacy, and women’s safety?

The case is attracting national attention mostly thanks to the dissenting opinion of Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee. More than two dozen judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a statement blasting Judge VanDyke for violating “decorum and collegiality.” What exactly did Judge VanDyke say? He bluntly told the truth that the absurd case was about “swinging d---s” in a space for women.

Judge VanDyke fired back at his fellow judges, writing:

“My distressed colleagues appear to have the fastidious sensibilities of a Victorian nun when it comes to mere unpleasant words in my opinion, yet [do not hesitate] trampling on religious liberties and exposing women and girls to male genitalia. That kind of selective outrage speaks for itself. . . 

“Yes, the introduction to this dissent intentionally uses indecorous language. But that is quite literally what this case is about. . . The fact that so many on our court want to pretend that this case is about anything other than swinging d**** is the very reason the shocking language is necessary. 

“The panel majority uses slick legal arguments and deflection to studiously avoid eye contact with the actual and horrific consequences of its erroneous opinion. The ‘ordinary Americans’ affected by the majority’s opinion don’t have that luxury. Squirm as we might, I think it’s only fair for our court to have a small taste of its own medicine.”