If no one goes to jail, the coup was a success



Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed evidence that the entire Russiagate hoax — a scheme to derail President Donald Trump’s first term — was manufactured by the outgoing Obama administration. At a press gaggle on Tuesday, Trump followed up by accusing Obama of “treason” for trying to rig the 2016 election and calling for severe consequences.

These revelations matter. But unless someone actually goes to jail, they won’t change anything.

MAGA supporters were furious over how the Epstein case was handled because they’re sick of elites skating free.

Democrats have shown they’re willing to jail political opponents — up to and including the president himself. Republicans, on the other hand, have proven utterly incapable of holding lawbreaking leftists accountable. Exposing treasonous acts is helpful, but if no one is punished, the corruption only deepens.

“Lock her up!” wasn’t just a chant at Trump rallies. MAGA supporters understood that the Clintons were deeply corrupt. They saw in Trump a candidate who might finally deliver justice. Elites gasped at the slogan, warning about the dangers of weaponizing the justice system. Then, with no sense of irony, they weaponized that very system against Trump to stop his re-election.

The lesson should have been obvious: Either cross the Rubicon, or don’t approach it at all. But don’t go fishing in it.

Americans are tired of watching the powerful get away with everything. In 2008, bankers crashed the economy and got bailed out. In 2020, Anthony Fauci and the biomedical regime imposed tyranny under the guise of public health. In 2020 and 2024, Joe Biden was propped up by a Democratic cabal that subverted the Constitution and jailed dissidents. The southern border was thrown open to reshape the electorate and lock in leftist power.

Kamala Harris nearly extended that reign — had she not turned out to be the dumbest, most tone-deaf, and most unlikable candidate ever smuggled onto a national ticket.

Yet through all of it, no one in power has paid a serious price for their crimes.

Major revelations come and go. But with no accountability, they become little more than distractions. There may have been a time when shame alone could bring a public reckoning — but our current ruling class is incapable of shame. They don’t resign in disgrace. They don’t retreat. They wait for the news cycle to move on.

The scandals pile up like grains of sand in a desert, each one indistinguishable from the next.

RELATED: Rule by the people? Not anymore in the Western world

  Blaze Media illustration

In this environment, exposing corruption becomes just another way to tranquilize the public. People think, “At least the truth is out there — maybe voters will care.” But what if the scandal is about rigging the vote in the first place? If Democrats can open the border, fabricate intelligence, and collude with media to tip elections, then what good is the ballot box?

Exposure, without punishment, doesn’t deter. It emboldens.

The left doesn’t hesitate to jail its enemies. January 6 protesters were locked up for years — including some who never entered the Capitol. Trump officials like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were arrested and imprisoned. Pro-life activists got comically inflated sentences for silent protests. The FBI threatened parents who challenged school boards. Douglass Mackey was convicted for making memes. Trump himself faced fabricated charges that could’ve put him behind bars for life — all to stop his return.

So why are Republicans so cowardly?

If what Gabbard alleges is true, then Barack Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, and Andrew McCabe conspired to destroy the American electoral system. They manufactured intelligence for the express purpose of overturning a legitimate election.

That is treason, plain and simple.

If these people are allowed to walk, they’ll know they’re untouchable. And they’ll act like it. Again.

Trump seemed genuinely surprised and angered by the backlash to Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files. Some speculated it was because Trump himself was implicated, but that was always unlikely. If real dirt on Trump existed, the people fabricating charges against him would’ve used it. Instead, Trump kept comparing Epstein to Russiagate — and now it’s obvious why.

RELATED: Why the Epstein story cannot be buried

  Photo by Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images

He knew the Russiagate disclosures were about to drop and didn’t want them overshadowed by Epstein.

Still, the connection matters.

MAGA supporters were furious over how the Epstein case was handled because they’re sick of elites skating free. They’re sick of being ruled by people who break the law with impunity. Fauci. Epstein. The Clintons. Americans know they’re governed by some of the worst people on the planet, and they’re done pretending otherwise.

The country is crying out for justice.

But frankly, I don’t think the Trump administration will deliver it. I hope I’m wrong. But I doubt there will be any serious action taken against Obama or the rest of his old guard. Republicans talk tough but never follow through. Even after the left tried to jail and then attempted to assassinate the president, the GOP still wrings its hands over setting a bad precedent.

It’s a bad joke. And everyone knows it.

Revelations are fine. But none of this will matter until the Trump administration grows a spine and puts these people in prison where they belong.

DOJ reaches out to one major Epstein witness everyone's been afraid to talk to



The Trump administration faced significant backlash over the Justice Department's July 6 conclusion that Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list — a list that Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed in a Feb. 21 interview to have sitting on her desk.

While President Donald Trump has indicated he does not personally share the public's continued fascination with the Epstein case, he told reporters on July 15 that he would instruct his administration to release any "credible information."

'The FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say.'

The DOJ, acting on Trump's instruction, is working to check off some items that appeared on Turning Point USA President Charlie Kirk's list of "10 immediate credible action items" Bondi could take that might satisfy Americans' hunger for answers, namely pressing Epstein's former lover and co-conspirator for answers.

Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in prison for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse minor girls as young as 14 with Epstein, going all the way back to the early 1990s.

According to evidence presented at her trial and allegations in court documents, Maxwell "assisted, facilitated, and participated in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to Maxwell and Epstein to be under the age of 18."

In addition to grooming minors for abuse, Maxwell — whose father the Telegraph indicated was a newspaper baron who had "known links with MI6, the KGB, and the Israeli intelligence service Mossad" — apparently did her best to normalize the abuse, allegedly discussing sexual topics with the victims, undressing in front of them, hanging around when the victims were being stripped, and encouraging the victims to massage Epstein.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk outlines '10 immediate credible action items' Pam Bondi can take on Epstein case

 Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Besides Epstein, it is unlikely there is anybody more familiar with the monstrous operation than Maxwell.

A source close to Maxwell recently told the Daily Mail that the convicted groomer "would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story."

"No one from the government has ever asked her to share what she knows," said the unnamed source. "She remains the only person to be jailed in connection to Epstein, and she would welcome the chance to tell the American public the truth."

'No lead is off-limits.'

Charlie Kirk recommended that all of Maxwell's grand jury testimony should be unsealed and that the administration should "green-light Maxwell to speak freely and learn what she knows."

"President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence," Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in statement on Tuesday. "If Ghislane [sic] Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say."

Blanche indicated that he reached out to Maxwell's counsel at Bondi's direction "to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the Department."

RELATED: Why the Epstein story cannot be buried

 Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

"I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days," continued Blanche. "Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now."

"No one is above the law," Blanche added in a separate message, "and no lead is off-limits."

While the convicted sex offender might volunteer some satisfactory insights, it's clear that the DOJ is not budging in the meantime on its conclusion regarding the existence of the Epstein list.

Blanche noted that the DOJ and FBI's controversial conclusion "remains as accurate today as it was when it was written. Namely, that in the recent thorough review of the files maintained by the FBI in the Epstein case, no evidence was uncovered that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Why the Epstein story cannot be buried



Why does the story of Jeffrey Epstein matter so deeply to the American right? Why does it persist, years after his death, as a source of outrage, fascination, and dread? Why is the call to “move on” met with such visceral resistance?

The answer lies in what Epstein’s case reveals. It is not merely the record of one man’s depravity or even the scale of the crimes committed. It is a window into a concealed architecture of unaccountable power, intelligence protection, institutional rot, and elite impunity. For many on the right, it confirms long-standing fears about how power in the United States is really organized and who it is designed to serve.

These questions strike at the heart of an older conservative concern: Who governs? And who is permitted to ask?

These concerns are hardly new. They are the very ones that helped elect Donald Trump, and they have shaped conservative criticism of the American regime since the New Deal. The Epstein affair provides a rare glimpse into the soft underbelly of the administrative state. At some point, moral clarity demands that we stop parsing and start acting. This is a time to strike, to “fire for effect.”

From the expansion of the federal bureaucracy under Franklin D. Roosevelt to the postwar rise of the national security state, conservatives have warned about the merger of government power with private influence. The most dangerous feature of that merger is not the bureaucracy itself, but the consolidation of authority among entrenched intelligence services, elite financial networks, and foreign-aligned interests. These actors operate in close coordination, beyond democratic oversight, and with the consistent protection of institutional power.

Epstein is valuable because he exposes that structure in plain sight. He had no obvious source of legitimate wealth. His hedge fund, insofar as it existed, had only one known client. Yet, he moved in elite circles, befriended presidents and princes, and maintained access to corporate titans and scientific institutions.

Most disturbingly, Epstein appears to have operated a long-standing sexual blackmail network. The question is not merely how he got away with it, but who allowed him to do so.

Staggering implications

The answers are deeply unsettling. The FBI curtailed its investigations. The CIA has remained silent. The media showed little interest and declined to pursue the story in any depth. Meanwhile, the possible involvement of foreign intelligence services (especially those operating through figures like Leslie Wexner) has been treated as politically untouchable. This refusal to investigate is not born of ignorance or oversight. It is protective behavior. It signals that the wrong people are implicated.

Even if one adopts the minimalist position, that Epstein was not a formal intelligence asset, the implications remain staggering. Why would a known predator be permitted to operate so openly, with so many connections to power? Is the American state unable or unwilling to act when the guilty hold the right kinds of passports or relationships? Have we reached a point where elite networks are simply beyond reach, shielded by layers of shared interest and mutual compromise?

These questions strike at the heart of an older conservative concern: Who governs? And who is permitted to ask?

RELATED: The White House will need to do plenty more to get past Epstein

  Photo by ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

Epstein’s case offers a rare and ugly answer. What it uncovers is not a fever dream of conspiracy but an observable mode of governance that relies on secrecy, compromise, and shared immunity. It appears that intelligence actors have conducted operations not only abroad but also inside the United States, targeting the American elite itself. An immoral country condones sexual blackmail as a mechanism of influence and protection, integrated into a broader system of control ... ironically an indication of a country spinning out of control.

A complicated inquiry

One can find instructive parallels in the operations of Israeli intelligence during the 1980s and 1990s. Under the direction of Mossad officials such as Efraim Halevy, Israel conducted systematic surveillance and developed personal leverage over Syrian elites. These methods included financial inducements, covert recordings, and exposure of private behavior. Such tactics are common in international espionage and are recognized tools of statecraft.

What makes Epstein so alarming is the apparent use of similar techniques within the United States, directed inward rather than outward. The uncomfortable possibility is that foreign intelligence services (including Israeli cutouts operating through figures like Wexner) were not merely bystanders, but active participants or beneficiaries of the Epstein operation. That possibility remains largely uninvestigated, not because it lacks merit, but because it threatens established political alignments.

Wexner’s history as a major donor to Republican candidates is one example of how these relationships complicate any honest inquiry. For a sitting senator or rising intelligence officer, confronting these questions comes at great cost.

This story is not important only because of the criminal sexual behavior it contains. That abuse, particularly of underage girls, is monstrous and demands full exposure and justice. But Epstein’s operation mattered at a higher level because those crimes were used to build networks of control. They were not incidental. They were instrumental. This is the cold logic of espionage deployed inside a supposedly self-governing republic.

RELATED: The conspiracy theorist is the last honest man

  Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

For the political right, Epstein represents a grim vindication. The warnings about politicized intelligence services, compromised elites, and foreign impunity were long dismissed as paranoia or fringe thinking. Yet, the details of this case suggest those warnings were not only plausible, but understated.

Consider the unequal application of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Consider the way domestic allies are hounded while foreign-aligned actors operate with impunity. Consider the cultural message that those with the right credentials and connections will never face consequences. Epstein’s story reveals the inner wiring of a regime that no longer pretends to serve the citizen, only itself.

Denial becomes confirmation

Was Epstein a direct employee of a domestic or foreign intelligence apparatus? I highly doubt it. My best guess is he was a very well-connected money launderer with a psychopathic lack of empathy who was therefore the perfect tool for intelligence gathering and manipulation. He operated in the open, however, and was criminally harmful to some of the most vulnerable U.S. citizens. But we have seen how little citizenship means in the modern internationalist cosmopolitan soup.

Efforts to bury this story are morally callous and institutionally suicidal. Each attempt to suppress, ignore, or discredit the legitimate questions raised by the Epstein case erodes the remaining credibility of the agencies involved. The denial becomes confirmation. The silence becomes testimony. The cover-up increases the criminality, the offense to the American people.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) warned in his farewell address of a rising military-industrial complex. But the deeper danger he identified was the fusion of state power, private capital, and unaccountable influence. Epstein should be understood as a grotesque product of that fusion. Refusing to confront it will not preserve institutional authority. It will ensure its collapse.

In the end, the Epstein story is not simply salacious. It is foundational. It forces a reckoning with how the American regime truly operates and what moral and political compromises have become routine. That is why so many are eager to see it buried.

And that is precisely why it must not be.

Trump gave Americans a choice, not an echo



The American Enterprise Institute is an unlikely place to be reminded of why Donald Trump was necessary 10 years ago and is no less needed now. But a comment by Yuval Levin on a recent AEI panel succinctly brought out the difference Trump has made. Criticizing today’s populist, Trump-led Republican Party, Levin said, “The right has to ground its approach to the public in a more conservative message, in a sense that this country is awesome. It is not a festering, burning garbage pile — that is a strange way to talk to the next generation, and it’s not true, even a little bit.”

Trump has never used the words “festering, burning garbage pile,” but he’s used similarly strong language to describe America’s condition in this century under administrations other than his own. Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” implies that America hasn’t been great lately, although he and his voters can change that. Whenever Trump alludes to what Levin calls “a festering, burning garbage pile,” he’s referring to the poor leadership our country has suffered from in the not-too-distant past and the results of its misgovernance.

Trump’s task is clear: Restore the people’s power over the elite. Only then will the elite feel compelled to reform.

But that’s not what Levin or other AEI types hear. To them, Trump’s criticisms of the ruling class sound like criticisms of the country.

He upended the system

It would be unfair to guess that Levin simply believes the nation’s elite and the institutions they run are what count as the country itself, but there are precedents for such a view. In traditional monarchies and aristocracies, the rulers are the embodiment of the realm. Our Declaration of Independence was quite radical in breaking away from that understanding, asserting that the people are the realm and that all its institutions are answerable to them, not the other way around.

Levin and other intelligent non-populist conservatives know this, and they’re well aware of the failings of the pre-Trump Republican Party and the country’s political establishment as a whole. But knowing and feeling are different things.

Much of what survives of the pre-Trump conservative movement even now feels that the virtues rather than the vices of the old elite (and the institutions with which they are almost synonymous) ought to be emphasized.

For reasons that are easy to understand, many temperamental conservatives have an abiding fear of demagogues and an irreverent public. However corrupt or incompetent Ivy League-educated leaders may be, they should not be criticized too harshly — likened to flaming rubbish, for example — lest Ivy League education itself be stripped of its mystique. That mystique is part of the decent drapery of republican life, instilling a proper attitude of deference among the public toward those who have the education and lifestyle preparation to lead them.

From the moment he came down the escalator a decade ago, Trump upended this system. He pays no heed to the norms that distinguish America’s leadership class from the rabble the way noble bloodlines distinguished leadership in traditional hierarchical societies.

Elite confusion

Trump draws strength from the weakness of America’s elites and the widening public awareness of their vices. This is why, again and again, he has been rewarded for violating the very norms the elites consider sacrosanct, even to the point of winning the Republican nomination and then the White House last year despite a slew of criminal convictions and many more pending charges.

In three consecutive elections, Trump has not offered voters only a choice of leaders but a choice between systems of government. The capaciousness of our republican Constitution is such that within its framework, more than one kind of regime is possible. The “informal regime” can be considered the regime of society as well as government, or a regime that in operation reflects the real dispensation of authority within the country.

Most Americans have sadly little familiarity with even the letter of the written Constitution, and even most educated Americans have never entertained the thought of an informal regime. Much of the country’s elite (think about the typical writer for the Atlantic, for example) suffers paroxysms of panic over Trump’s words and actions because its members conceive of the informal regime under which they’ve lived their whole lives — and under which people like themselves flourish — as being the only natural outcome of the written Constitution.

RELATED: Trump isn’t hiding a client list — he’s too busy saving the country

  Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

To violate the “norms” of this regime is to violate the Constitution itself, as far as their understanding can conceive.

It’s rare that voters get to make a choice not just between candidates but between regimes. The greater and lesser George Bush, the male and female Clinton, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris all represented the same regime and norms. Trump differs from them all not only in policy but in the relationships he represents between the people, elected power, and institutional elites (both inside and outside government).

They delegitimized themselves

Trump at last gave the American people a choice of regimes, with one regime — represented by his enemies, not just in the general election but in the Republican Party, too — operating on aristocratic presumptions and the other being a reassertion of popular self-government, including its characteristic parrhesiaand even vulgarity.

Crude materialists who understand power only in terms of wealth struggle to interpret Trump, because he and many of his associates obviously belong to the same affluent class as his enemies. Yet just as Christ said the poor will always be with us, so too does every regime, formal or informal, have its rich men. The regime is not defined by the existence of a wealthy group; it’s rather about relationships and authority, and that is what Trump has changed.

This change was necessary because the old regime had already destroyed its own legitimacy. It performed poorly for millions of ordinary Americans, but beyond that, it had also grown arrogant. Its norms were not a limitation on its power or abuses but rather a gag stifling criticism from within or below.

The new regime that’s in the making will have its own defects and will need various corrections, but the test of a regime lies precisely in its ability to correct itself. The old elite had lost that ability and would hardly have had the will to exercise the capability even if it had still been there.

Trump is not a revolutionary who has overthrown a healthy order. Rather, he, like the American revolutionaries of 250 years ago, has given the people a chance to be healthy again by ridding themselves of a debilitating regime. Americans had been tricked into living under an aristocracy within the form of a democracy.

Against the phony aristocracy

Thomas Jefferson hoped that voters would freely choose natural aristocrats — leaders of wisdom, virtue, and ability. But in recent decades, the country fell under the rule of an aristocracy against nature: a self-perpetuating elite that governed through institutions immune to the ballot box. Universities, nonprofits, media outlets, the permanent bureaucracy, judges, and political operatives in both parties — each aligned ideologically, broadly liberal — formed a web of power that shut down any real challenge.

Until Trump.

He offered the people a radical choice, and they took it. They rejected the aristocracy.

If America’s ruling class had actually resembled the natural aristocrats Jefferson envisioned, the people might not have turned to Trump. But the elite they faced was an aristocracy of privilege: smug mediocrities, not public-spirited heroes or genuine geniuses. Swapping one set of insiders for another would have changed nothing. Trump gave them a worthwhile alternative.

Even conservatives like Yuval Levin — who value the role of a well-formed elite in a healthy republic — should recognize this moment. America can only return to true aristocracy, the kind America’s founders hoped for, by becoming more democratic and more populist. The people must want an elite — and they will only want one that serves them faithfully, competently, and without arrogance.

Trump’s task is clear: Restore the people’s power over the elite. Only then will the elite feel compelled to reform.

That path won’t destroy American institutions. It will save them.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

Why MAGA wants the Epstein list — and won’t settle for less



What’s happening with Donald Trump and Pam Bondi’s mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein files is a textbook example of the rake-stepping that tripped up the president’s first term. The timing is worse this time, too — because it stands in sharp contrast to the mostly smooth, high-functioning operation of Trump’s second term so far.

Something’s clearly going on behind the scenes — something so sensitive that it’s backing this administration into corners that no number of Ben Shapiro explainers can easily talk us out of. I won’t speculate here on what exactly that “something” is. You’ve earned the right to connect your own dots in this post-COVID, post-trans-the-kids world.

We are in a civil war — spiritual, political, cultural. And the last thing we can afford right now is to split our ranks over a human toilet like Jeffrey Epstein.

But the politics of this mess? That’s what I want to talk about.

A movement that’s moved on

As someone who came of age politically reading Buckley, Kirk, Friedman, and Reagan — before I ever knew the gospel — I’ve often found myself at odds with parts of the MAGA movement. My political DNA was shaped by ideas. MAGA has shifted into something else entirely, something rawer, more primal. Less interested in debating the “oughts” and more obsessed with exposing the corruption and rot.

In that sense, DeSantis vs. Trump wasn’t just a primary — it was a proxy war. And MAGA told people like me, flat out: We’re not ready for your high-minded conversation. First, we’ve got to name names and slash some tires.

One of those names, from the very beginning, was Epstein — and anyone who set foot on his infamous island.

Trump himself promised to release the Epstein list more than once on the 2024 campaign trail. So did members of his inner circle. That pledge became a symbol — a MAGA line in the sand. Break it, and you break trust. Think Bush 41’s “read my lips” betrayal, but this time with the stakes multiplied by a base that’s already been burned too many times.

The movement wants its perp walk. And until it gets it, as the prophets Hetfield and Ulrich once said, nothing else matters.

The fracture under way

Still think this is just internet drama? Then explain why George Conway is reposting Glenn Beck. Did you have that on your 2025 bingo card?

 

Or why Jake Tapper — yes, that Jake Tapper — thinks this is his comeback moment. He’s calling for the release of the Epstein list and the tapes, not because he cares about justice, but because he knows exactly how deep the wound could go. He sees the opportunity to turn a hairline fracture in Trump’s base into a compound break.

RELATED: The Epstein case proves one thing: The elites are protected

  Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

And here’s the thing: He might succeed.

Unless someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or the Justice Department decides it’s worth risking serious chaos in the GOP, this issue won’t just fester. It’ll metastasize.

If this controversy had erupted while Trump was pushing votes for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act or preparing to bomb Iran, would the base have stood firm? Maybe not. Because this hits differently. This feels moral. Existential. A test of whether Trump’s still serious — or if power has tamed him as it tamed so many before.

The clock is ticking

And what happens in 2026?

Republican turnout in the low 90s won’t cut it — not with a deflated, demoralized base that sees Epstein accountability as a promise on par with Trump’s other major blunders. COVID. Fauci. The shots. Pile on Elon Musk’s third-party siren song, and that’s maybe just enough to peel off five points, and you’ve got a perfect storm of apathy, betrayal, and collapse.

This is the math no one wants to run — but it’s already penciled in.

The Trump team’s answers are getting the red-pen treatment in real time. The political class can pretend this is a sideshow. It isn’t. It’s the main stage, and the spotlight’s burning hot.

We are in a civil war — spiritual, political, cultural. And the last thing we can afford right now is to split our ranks over a human toilet like Jeffrey Epstein.

Wikipedia co-founder: Epstein, elite rings, and occult portals — what they don’t want you to know



Co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger found God in an unconventional way.

When he was introduced by a friend to the world of Jeffrey Epstein and the elites, he was forced to reckon with the idea that our culture is ruled by those who will do anything to defend their own immoral horrors.

“A friend of mine was opening my eyes to the existence of various — call them elite pedophile rings. Epstein was not the only one. You can look up the NXIVM case,” Sanger tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“And then there’s, like, ‘Pedowood,’ which is what we call the prevalence of pedophilia in Hollywood. It’s very weird that a lot of the people who are involved, or at least accused of being involved, in such activities have occult beliefs,” he continues.


According to Sanger, his friend knew some of these people personally and confirmed that’s why “they use all of these symbols,” like “the old one-eye.”

“People still notice that, but they used to do that all the time. I think they avoid it now, but generally speaking, a lot of movie posters would show up with this. That’s an occult symbol,” he explains.

Those who partake in these morally bankrupt rituals are willing to put a lot on the line to defend them, which Sanger explains must “at least mean that the spirit world is true” and that “demons exist.”

And because it opened his eyes to evil, he realized that its opposite, good, exists as well.

“Doesn’t that mean that it’s possible that God exists?” he says.

And that’s why, as he found himself digging deeper into the occult, he did not want to “open any portals.”

“I didn’t want to get into it,” he tells Stuckey. “But one thing I learned is that if you look at Masonic symbology, it’s based on a lot of Old Testament, like, temple symbology. What occultists like to do is to invert biblical symbols.”

“So, in other words, pervert them, twist them,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Epstein case proves one thing: The elites are protected



Late Sunday night, the Department of Justice and FBI released a two‑page memo to Axios claiming they found no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein kept a “client list,” blackmailed powerful figures, or was murdered in his cell. The memo clings to the original narrative that Epstein died by suicide in 2019.

To prop up that conclusion, the government published a three-page inventory of items seized from Epstein’s New York property: hard drives, tapes, sex toys, a false passport, and materials labeled with grotesque descriptions.

The Epstein case isn’t over. It is the Rosetta stone of public corruption.

Are we seriously supposed to accept that the case is suddenly closed? Attorney General Pam Bondi once told Fox News a “client list” was literally “sitting on [her] desk.” Now? Crickets. Influencers like Elon Musk are calling it “the final straw,” arguing that the memo is government theater to shield powerful elites.

This newly released list information isn’t just damning — it’s clarifying. No matter what you believe about Epstein’s past, his connections, or the murky circumstances of his death, the physical material collected by law enforcement points to five unavoidable conclusions. Each one raises a deeper and more disturbing question about the integrity of our institutions.

In short, the Epstein narrative is far from closed.

1. Epstein wasn’t a lone predator

The new evidence released from the Justice Department reads like a logistics inventory: dozens of electronic devices, thousands of photos, labeled albums, surveillance tapes, foreign passports, and even blueprints. One man doesn’t accumulate this kind of material — not without help, not without infrastructure.

This wasn’t just one depraved individual hiding a secret life. This was an operation. There were logistics. There was coordination. It was built to function and built to last. It was designed to serve a purpose — and to avoid detection.

2. The digital footprint is too large

Hundreds of hard drives, USBs, CDs, backup servers — some with sick labels such as "girl pics nude book 4.” Employee directories, flight logs, video archives. The kind of data capable of telling a full story — not just of crimes committed, but of the people who enabled them or turned a blind eye.

And yet, the real scandal isn’t just the content of these files. It’s how little the public has been allowed to see. Where is the transparency? Why hasn’t this material been disclosed in full?

3. Intel agency involvement is no longer a fringe theory

An Austrian passport with Epstein’s face. Connections in multiple countries. A global footprint. Honeytrap-style setups. These aren’t signs of a rich playboy — they’re signatures of intelligence tradecraft.

The precision, the longevity, the immunity from exposure for decades — none of it is accidental. None of it should be dismissed. To suggest that this might have had intelligence involvement isn’t conspiratorial. It’s logical.

4. The system’s silence is telling

If any ordinary citizen had even one-tenth of what was found in Epstein’s homes — underage photos, encrypted files, coded file names, international travel records — they would already be serving a life sentence. Yet here, we’re met with silence. No high-profile prosecutions. No public hearings. No accountability.

The lack of consequence is the consequence. The silence of the system is itself a kind of answer — and it’s deafening.

5. Every elite institution is on trial

This is no longer just about Epstein. It’s about what happens when justice is optional, when media chooses complicity over courage, when law enforcement protects the powerful rather than prosecutes them, when truth is buried because its exposure might be inconvenient for people in the right circles.

Until this case is fully exposed, every elite institution in America carries a stench it cannot wash off. Public trust is hemorrhaging, and no press release can stop the bleeding.

RELATED: Liz Wheeler unleashes fury: FIRE Pam Bondi over Epstein cover-up scandal!

  Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

A civic reckoning

To dismiss public concern about Epstein as a “conspiracy theory” is to admit that we no longer believe in basic civic accountability. The demand for answers is not fueled by paranoia — it’s a moral and constitutional obligation. If we shrug off what those files contain, we declare that truth is now negotiable, justice is a luxury reserved for the unimportant, and power is a permanent shield for the perverse.

The Epstein case isn’t over. It is the Rosetta stone of public corruption. And if we don’t get to the bottom of it — if we allow the truth to remain buried — we will never restore what’s already been lost.

Mass Migration Destroys The West Like Crowd Controls Destroy The Mona Lisa

The goal of allowing ever more people in, while egalitarian, actually diminishes the experience for everyone.

Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way



After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.

That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.

But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.

Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.

Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.

From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.

They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.

“America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.

Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.

In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.

He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

  Blaze Media Illustration

Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.

Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.

So which is it?

Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?

Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.

Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.

Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.

Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.

Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.

These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.

Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.

So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.

Trump doesn’t threaten democracy — he threatens its ruling class



For years, I’ve heard the same complaint from friends, family, and the nightly news: Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. The real problem, they say, is the man’s personality. If only he weren’t so obnoxious, if only he didn’t speak off the cuff or insult his critics, then maybe his enemies would stop calling him a Nazi. Maybe the protests would stop. Maybe the country could calm down.

It’s true that Trump’s tactlessness and unreflective speech can grate, even on those who support him. But let’s not pretend his critics hold anyone else to the same standard. Where was their outrage when Joe Biden declared that Trump supporters were “the only garbage I see,” smeared the GOP as “semi-fascists" and "terrorists,” or cursed at reporters who dared ask unscripted questions?

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly.

The same people clutching pearls over Trump’s tone cheered on mouthy scolds like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. They ignored threats by former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who warned Supreme Court justices against overturning Roe v. Wade outside their own courthouse. When it comes to rhetoric, Democrats don’t offend them — only Republicans do.

And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Anti-white racism is commonplace among Democrats. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) mocked Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) as a purveyor of “white tears” for disagreeing with her. Crockett also derided “mediocre white boys” who oppose race-based preferences and once referred to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as “Governor Hot Wheels” without consequence. No apology. No media outcry. Just applause.

At some point, the conclusion becomes obvious: The outrage over Trump’s rhetoric has little to do with his words. It has everything to do with the groups he opposes. His critics don’t hate how he speaks. They hate what he threatens.

If rhetoric really mattered, then Democrats would call out their own side for the endless stream of vile speech and political violence. But they don’t. They won’t. Because they know it’s not about tone. It’s about power.

Would the Trump-haters change their tune if a more well-mannered Republican — House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), or even Dr. Oz — pushed Trump’s policies? Don’t bet on it. Democrats didn’t tone down their vitriol even after two assassination attempts against Trump, the second by a man, Ryan Routh, who explicitly cited Democratic rhetoric and media hysteria as his motivation.

Legacy media rage against Trump not because he speaks crudely, but because he disrupts their agenda. He guts bloated agencies, cuts funding to woke nonprofits, and works to dismantle bureaucracies like the Department of Education — which caters to teachers’ unions but has done zilch to improve American learning.

Trump also dares to enforce immigration law. After Democrats spent years encouraging waves of illegal immigration, he tried to reverse the damage — and they called him a “tyrant.” He asserts that men are men and women are women, even as the ruling class invents new genders and demands compliance.

RELATED: Progressives’ ‘democracy’ is just a cover for unaccountable power

  Blaze News Illustration

The ruling class can get away with its double standard because its multiple armies close ranks to defend any lie or exaggeration from its government placeholders. When Biden labeled Trump’s voters as terrorists, the foreign policy blob, the think-tank class, and the media all fell in line. Groups like the Council on Foreign Relations echoed the claim, amplifying a fantasy of right-wing extremism while excusing left-wing bigotry.

Search engines bury criticism of Democrats while promoting glowing defenses of their nastiest remarks. The same media that spent years covering for Biden’s obvious cognitive decline and told you it’s a conspiracy theory to question his mental fitness to serve now say they had no idea anything was wrong. Trust them.

And don’t forget the cultural cleanup crews. During Pride Month, every major corporation, institution, and media outlet falls in lockstep. No dissent. No nuance. Just forced applause for whatever new orthodoxy the cultural left pushes. (Though that might be changing.)

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly. Even modest success in weakening their grip on government, culture, or education terrifies them. Because once that monopoly breaks, their entire edifice could fall.

That’s why Trump provokes such hysteria. Not because he insults people. But because he threatens the system that protects their power.

And maybe, just maybe, that’s a good thing.