Candace Owens And Tucker Carlson Have A Network That Beats Legacy Media

Whatever bad things you might otherwise say about Salem Nedia, which owns PJ Media, Instapundit, RedState, and other alt outlets, the one thing they haven't done has been to hop onto the Joe Kent bandwagon. That bandwagon includes various conspiracy theories that are never fully articulated, but they hint at broad Israeli involvement, not just in prompting the US to attack Iran, but in being somehow behind both the Charlie Kirk assassination and even tbe attempted Butler, PA assassination of Donald Trump.

In fact, Salem's Instapundit linked to this X post, which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else:

𝗛𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚.𝗔𝗜 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗞𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗝𝗢𝗘 𝗞𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗡𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗡 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘. 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗘𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗕𝗔𝗧𝗘.

Joe Kent goes on Tucker Carlson. Within minutes — not hours, minutes — the same clip, same… https://t.co/fOP7qwmZFO pic.twitter.com/TEF2OVLlz5

— M.A. Rothman (@MichaelARothman) March 20, 2026

It points out that almost simultaneously with Thursday's Joe Kent interview on Tucker Carlson, the identical clip was on Russian state TV (RT), Iranian state media (HispanTV), Hamas-aligned Quds News Network, 🇹TRT (Turkish state broadcaster), Sputnik Brasil, Jackson Hinkle, Candace Owens, MTG, and Max. The following day, he was on Megyn Kelly, whose interview is embedded at the top of this post. Then a whole series of alt YouTubers, including Micheal Lebron, who posts as Lionel, Mark Dice, Shawn Ryan, Tim Dillon, and Ian Carroll, had good things to say about Kent.

Thursday night, Candace Owens featured him at a Catholic Prayer For America Gala in Washington sposored by the group Catholics for Catholics (CFC):

Although CFC had announced Kent would be interviewed on stage by Candace Owens, the far-right podcaster and influencer, his actual five-minute appearance at the black-tie affair — which C-Span interrupted its regular programming to broadcast — turned out to be rather anodyne. Kent briefly repeated his anti-Iran War views. When pressed by CFC president John Yep, Kent added a religious flourish: “Having faith, I was able to hear God’s voice. . .”

lthough Kent says he's Catholic, at least insofar as his baptism is concerned, his past statements in political camapaigns have been in questionable conformance with Catholic teaching.

At a 2022 town hall, Kent agreed with a Christian nationalist in the audience who asked whether the far-right extremist would support a 20 year ban on nearly all immigration to the United States, in part to combat “demographic replacement.”

Now [2023], more than a year after the initial reporting, Republicans’ top choice for Washington’s 3rd Congressional District is claiming he never agreed with the idea of a 20 year immigration ban, and is threatening legal action against the paper.

Candace Owens appears to have been one figure with foreknowledge of Kent's resignation. At the first link above,

After Kent announced he was leaving the Trump administration on Tuesday, Owens immediately seized on it for her own purposes. Within an hour of Kent posting his resignation letter on X, Owens quote-tweeted it, calling him “an American hero, patriot and veteran.” She disparaged Trump as “a shameful president,” adding: “May American troops take his lead and look into conscientious objection to Bibi’s Red Heifer War. Goyim stand down.” . . . The next day, Catholics for Catholics announced she would be interviewing Kent at their gala.

Candace Owens herself is a recent Catholic convert. At the same link,

Two years ago, [Catholics for Catholics] celebrated Owens’ conversion, which coincided with her firing from right-wing podcaster Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire over her antisemitism. Along with Catholics for Catholics, many on the online right rallied behind Owens after her departure from Shapiro’s organization, praising or sanitizing her antisemitism.

Owens also has a history of brief affiliations with conservative organizations, which don't always end well. According to Wikipedia,

On November 21, 2017, at the MAGA Rally and Expo in Rockford, Illinois, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk announced that Owens had been hired as the organization's director of urban engagement. Turning Point's hiring of Owens occurred in the wake of allegations of racism at Turning Point. In May 2019, Owens announced her departure as communications director for the organization.

. . . Owens left PragerU in 2020 to host Candace, a show on The Daily Wire. The show premiered on the platform on March 19, 2021. Its episodes were filmed in front of a live studio audience and aired weekly. Notable guests included Donald Trump, UFC president Dana White, and U.S. Representative Jim Jordan.

Jeremy Boreing announced Owens would be leaving The Daily Wire in March 2024, a move believed to be related to a string of comments considered to be antisemitic, culminating in Owens liking a tweet referencing blood libel. There had also been months of tensions with co-host Ben Shapiro and other Daily Wire staff.

Shapiro himself, of course, is an ambitious self-promoter. But it's significant that the current Candace-driven controversy over Joe Kent seems to stem in large part from her campaign against Erika Kirk, which in turn seems to stem from a lingering complaint against Turning Point USA:

Owens said Tuesday [December 16, 2025] that her suspicions about certain employees at Turning Point USA, the conservative organizing group Kirk co-founded and where she once worked, hadn’t been assuaged by her meeting with Erika Kirk and other Turning Point staffers. Owens heavily implied that she believes Israel had something to do with Kirk’s death, promoting an unsubstantiated theory that Israeli officials have denied and that some of her critics say is evidence that she is boosting antisemitism.

Owens’ campaign following Kirk’s September 10 assassination has driven deep divisions within the MAGA influencer world. Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and comedian Dave Smith have all defended her to some degree, while Tim Pool and Ben Shapiro have both described Owens’ actions as “evil,” and Nick Fuentes has said she’s a narcissist hurting America.

. . . Owens has instead suggested France, Israel and Egypt might have been involved; that Charlie Kirk was “betrayed” by people close to him; and that state and federal law enforcement are covering up a bigger crime.

It's hard to avoid thinking that Joe Kent's resignation played into a larger conspiracy framing that was driven even before the February 28 attacks on Iran by preconceptions formed primarily by Candace Owens, apparently with the assistance of Tucker Carlson. Then, between them, they seem to have controlled a larger, MAGA-affiliated group of podcasters and commentators, especially Megyn Kelly. But Joe Kent is their creation.

We Gradually Learn More About Tucker Carlson

I continue to be fascinated by the notional "MAGA civil war" involving figures like Tucker Carlson. In fact, we know very little about Carlson. For instance, someone on YouTube remarked that he'd said that people who argued in favor of the US nuclear attacks on Japan were "evil", so I decided to follow up. I asked my AI oracle, "Has Tucker Carlson said those who support the nuclear bombing of Japan are evil?" It answered,

Yes, Tucker Carlson has stated that those who argue in favor of dropping nuclear weapons on civilians are "evil."

His comments were made during an April 2024 appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience and later reiterated in other formats.

. . . In subsequent discussions, such as on the War Room podcast in November 2024, he described nuclear weapons as "demonic" and argued there is no upside to them, suggesting their creation was driven by non-human forces.

It provided a link to a UK Guardian story from 2024:

Demons that Tucker Carlson claimed attacked him as he slept were also responsible for the invention of nuclear technology, the conservative former Fox News host said on Monday in another bizarre contention.

Carlson made the claim on the War Room podcast hosted by his fellow rightwing extremist Steve Bannon[.]

. . . Nuclear weapons are demonic, there’s no upside to them at all, and anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or doing the bidding of the forces that created nuclear technology in the first place, which were not human forces obviously,” Carlson said during a discussion on the perceived “spirituality” involved in the US development of atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan in August 1945, hastening the end of the second world war.

“Let me ask you this,” he continued. “What was the moment we can point to that nuclear technology was invented? I’ve never met a person who can isolate the moment where nuclear technology became known to man. German scientists in the 1930s? Really? Name the date? It’s very clear to me that these [nuclear weapons] are demonic.”

That's a peculiar question to ask. I asked AI, "When was 'nuclear technlogy' first theorized?" Its answer was pretty clear:

Nuclear technology was first theorized in the early 20th century, with the most direct conceptual foundation—the nuclear chain reaction—proposed by Hungarian-American physicist Leo Szilard on September 12, 1933.

. . . Albert Einstein's formula E=mc squared provided the first mathematical proof that a small amount of matter could be converted into a massive amount of energy, though the mechanism to do so was unknown.

. . . Following Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann's experimental discovery of fission, Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch provided the first theoretical explanation in 1939, naming the process "fission" and calculating its immense energy release.

. . . The Frisch–Peierls memorandum theorized that a small amount of pure uranium-235 could create an explosive chain reaction, moving nuclear technology from abstract theory to an actionable military project.

The transition from theory to technology was finalized on December 2, 1942, when Enrico Fermi's team achieved the first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction with the Chicago Pile-1 reactor.

Even without AI, Carlson could have dug this sort of thing up in ten minutes on the web. And this is a story of technological trial-and-error that was presaged in the development of steam propulsion, electricity, the light bulb, and heavier-than-air flight. There's no need to postulate demons, although if you do, you may as well postulate that demons inspired James Watt, Thomas Edison, or the Wright Brothers -- except that Occam's Razor more or less excludes this with any of these others.

But Tucker knows from demons. Back to the Guardian link:

Carlson’s talk about demons follows remarks he made last week about how he was allegedly “physically mauled” by one a year and a half ago. The former Fox News host claimed that it was a nighttime attack where he was left bleeding and scarred by “claw marks”.

Those comments came in a preview clip posted to YouTube of an upcoming documentary, Christianities?, which is billed as a “journey to the heart of the faith”.

John Heers, founder of the non-profit First Things Foundation, asked Carlson if he believed that “the presence of evil is kickstarting people to wonder about the good”.

“That’s what happened to me. I had a direct experience with it,” Carlson replied.

Asked if he was referring to journalism, Carlson responded: “No, in my bed at night. I got attacked while I was asleep with my wife and four dogs and mauled, physically mauled.”

His assailant, Carlson added, was “a demon … or something unseen that left claw marks on my side”.

It was, he said, a “transformative experience” that left him “seized with this very intense desire to read the Bible”.

I went looking for John Heers on the web and discovered that he's the founder of the First Things Foundation, which has no relation to the First Things journal. Heers says on his website,

We aim to unite people in authentic ways to create long lasting relationships that lead to beauty incarnate. Right now we do this in two ways:

At home we offer the Supra dinner and a restaurant that offers the Supra with great food and unrivaled hospitality.

Overseas in developing countries we offer human beings to live an existence that radiates the Supra, that radiates hospitality and the notion of healing. Those human beings offer aid in the form of authentic projects, on the ground, in real time.

In other words, he's some kind of quasi-hippie flake. What on earth is Tucker Carlson doing with him? A 2023 story, Tucker Carlson and Religion, may have some bearing. although this subject is murky indeed:

Vanity Fair was the only major publication to suggest that religion may have played a role in his firing [from Fox]. In a recent speech to the Heritage Foundation, Carlson described the world as locked in a religious battle between good and evil. Rupert Murdoch, FOX chair and founder, is (at least) vaguely hostile to religion. But not his ex-fiancee. She was a major fan of Carlson, calling him a “messenger of God.” Vanity Fair reports that this may have contributed to Murdoch’s sudden booting of his star:

[Murdoch was briefly engaged to Ann Lesley Smith, who believed that Carlson was "a messenger from God". She arranged a dinner with Murdoch and Carlson, which appears to have had the effect of canceling the engagement.]

. . . All this raises questions about Carlson’s religious views — ideas he increasingly puts center-stage.

. . . Carlson’s relationship with the Episcopal Church has often been noted in the press[.]

His divorced parents raised him (at least loosely) in the Episcopal Church. In 1983, when he was 14, Carlson was sent to St. George’s, an elite private school, one of the educational crown jewels of the denomination.

A year later, in 1984, the Reverend George Andrews arrived to be the school’s new headmaster — and his daughter, Susan, would eventually date and later marry Tucker Carlson. And thus, Tucker Carlson’s father-in-law is an Episcopal priest, one who once held a plum appointment at a posh boarding school.

While most articles mentioning Carlson’s education praise St. George’s elite status, they fail to mention the fact that the school was also the site of the worst sexual abuse scandal in the modern Episcopal Church. George Andrews was the headmaster from 1984-1988, nearly the exact years in which Carlson was a student, and during which a music teacher was accused of abuse by a number of victims.

. . . After almost a decade at the school, that teacher was terminated. . . . There is no suggestion that Carlson’s father-in-law was in any way involved in abuse. The investigation was about how he handled it and what he knew at the time.

Following the revelations of the St. George’s scandal, the Diocese of Southeast Florida opened an investigation into Andrews as well (the story was reported by a FOX News affiliate in Florida). There is no indiction how this investigation and any legal issues it raised were finally resolved.

According to Wikipedia, George Andrews was headmaster of of Saint Andrew's School in Boca Raton, Florida, from 1989 to 2007. According to this 2016 link,

An Episcopal diocese in Florida says it is investigating a former headmaster at the elite Rhode Island boarding school St. George's, which is at the center of an abuse scandal.

The Rev. George E. Andrews is accused of failing to report sexual abuse by a teacher to authorities when he led the school in the 1980s. He now runs a consulting firm that places chaplains at Episcopal and other schools. His son-in-law is the Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, and his daughter sits on the St. George's board.

It appears that whatever Andrews may have done to address the scandal, he also kept it quiet, and it apparently stayed quiet for almost 30 years. And as far as Episcopalians were concerned, that was a Good Thing. I do have a sense, with a number of other writers, that Carlson is deeply conflicted about his Episcopalianism. I asked AI, "Is Tucker Carlson currently a member of an Episcopal parish?" It answered,

As of early 2026, Tucker Carlson remains a self-identified member of the Episcopal Church, though he is highly critical of the denomination's leadership and progressive theology. While he has not publicly named a specific local parish where he is currently a member, he has confirmed in several recent interviews that he still attends services.

Well, this is just the start of a journey down the rabbit hole.

Harvard Jewish Enrollment Declines

On Wednesday,

The Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance (HJAA) today released a report, A Narrowing Gate: Jewish Enrollment at Harvard and Its Peers: 1967–2025, documenting what it describes as a significant and anomalous decline in Jewish undergraduate enrollment at Harvard University over the past two decades.

The report's central finding is that Jewish enrollment at Harvard stands at approximately 7 percent today—the lowest recorded since before World War II, roughly half what it was a decade ago, and the lowest among Ivy League institutions for which reliable data exist. Three independent sources converge on this conclusion: the Harvard Crimson Freshman Survey series, a 2016 stratified random sample conducted by the Brandeis University Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies (CMJS), and enrollment estimates from Hillel International.

The report does not assert that Harvard intentionally discriminates against Jewish applicants. Instead, it identifies what the authors describe as a measurable anomaly in enrollment trends that warrants closer examination.

It's worth noting in this context that Penny Pritzker, who is "Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation", is effectively the university's CEO, and she's of Jewish heritage, although according to AI,

Penny Pritzker is Jewish and has a strong connection to her heritage, often supporting Jewish causes and speaking on her family's history. However, there is no public information indicating she is an "observant" or Orthodox Jew, as she is primarily recognized as a civic and business leader rather than a religious figure. . . . There is no specific publicly available record confirming her membership in a particular synagogue.

While the HJAA study appears to go to great lengths not to speculate on the cause of this decline, it's worth pointing out that Alan Dershowitz, who has written extensively on Jewish quotas in the Ivy League (for instance in his 1992 Chutzpah) attributes the whole selective-admissions culture of the Ivy League to the desire to limit Jewish enrollment beginning in the 1920s, as the prosperous offspring of 19th-century immigrants began to have the wherewithal to apply.

In other words, the whole rationale that made Harvard Harvard, that it selectively chose the crème de la crème, was that it carefully limited the number of Jews in its student body. It did this by stressing things like "well-roundedness" in applicants and "geographical diversity", giving preference to applicants from areas outside coastal cities and suburbs. There seems to have been a national consensus that supported this approach, which was taken pretty much for granted, possibly because it did retain a fairly high "Jewish quota", even if it was in fact a quota, until the 1990s, and this is reflected in the HJAA report:

HJAA is calling on Harvard to conduct a formal review of the issue. Harvard currently tracks enrollment by race, gender, geography, income, and first-generation status. Jewish students are protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act but do not fall within Harvard's demographic tracking categories. The university collected religious preference data through the early 1990s but no longer does so.

In other words, even though Harvard was required at least to be able to report its proportion of Jewish students under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, just as it had to report on blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, it simply stopped counting them in the 1990s, and -- a coincidence? -- that's when the numbers began to decline. A 2025 article in The Globalist that predates the HJAA study, points out some of the otherr anomalies:

• Four out of Harvard’s last six presidents, including Alan Garber, Harvard’s recently installed president, have been Jewish [but as with Penny Pritzker, not necessarily observant Jews.}
• Five decades ago, American Jews represented about 20% of Harvard undergraduates. The decline in Jewish undergraduate enrollment to 10% reflects the dramatic changes in the racial composition of a class. [As of the HJAAS study, the percentage has declined further to 7%.]
• Fifty years ago, the student body was about 80% white and 12% Black, with a small percentage of Asian Americans.
• For the Harvard class of 2028, the breakdown is 14% Black, 37% Asian American, 16% Hispanic and 33% white (the number for white students, which Harvard did not disclose, is inferred). {For whatever reason, foreign students are omitted as a group here, when other reports put them at about 20%.}
• Fifty years ago, American Jews were 25% of white students — now they are about 30%. That is impressive for a group that represents 2.4% of all Americans.

In other words, even though we've cut way back on whites, as a percentage of whites, the Jews are higher than ever! They should be grateful! But the basic question is that the traditional "white" slice of the pie has shrunk from 80% white to 33% white, when the current percentage of non-Hispanic whites in the US population is 56-58%. Something's going on here, and it's not enough to claim the Jewish quota has gone up among this shrinking overall group.

I asked my AI oracle, "There are reports that Jewish enrollment at Harvard has fallen to 7% from 25% at its peak. Are particular groups gaining as a result?" It answered,

While the HJAA describes this decline as a "statistical anomaly" compared to peer institutions, it does not definitively name one specific group that has gained exclusively because of this shift. Instead, the report and broader university data highlight several concurrent demographic trends:

. . . The HJAA report tested several "structural explanations" for why Jewish enrollment specifically has declined while other groups grew. They found that no single factor—including geographic diversification, socioeconomic targeting, or athletic recruitment—fully explains the gap.

Except that as Dershowitz would point out, "geographic diversification, socioeconomic targeting, or athletic recruitment" are century-old methods of indirectly disfavoring Jewish applicants in the first place, along with others like favoring legacies and preppies, which apparently remain significant parts of tne otherwise shrinking overall "white" slice of the pie. The AI reply also mentioned this:

Over the last two decades, Harvard has significantly expanded its international student recruitment, though this specific group saw a slight decrease in the most recent 2025 data.

I asked AI, "What is the percentager of international students at Harvard?" It answered,

As of the 2025–2026 academic year, international students make up 28% of the total student body at Harvard University. This represents a record high for the institution, with 6,749 foreign students enrolled despite ongoing federal pressure and visa challenges.

Overall University: 28% of all students are international.

Harvard College (Undergraduate): Approximately 15% of students are from abroad.

Clearly the rise in DEI and foreign student admissions accounts for the decline in native-born US white enrollment from 80% to 33%, and foreign students in particular likely account for the rise in anti-Semitism on campus. According to The Hill,

27 percent of its student body, or some 6,800 attendees, in the 2024-2025 academic year was made up of international students, who typically pay more in tuition and other costs than domestic ones.

According to NAFSA data, international students at Harvard contribute approximately $383.6 million annually to the area’s economy, supporting around 3,910 jobs.

In other words, these are the wealthy scions of third-world elites. Foreign students are all about the Benjamins. But this is just the start of the questions that need to be raised about what's going on at Harvard.

The Joe Kent Story Goes Deeper Into The Weeds

There was an initial hint in the morning's news that there might be more to the Joe Kent story:

According to Semafor, Joe Kent, the top counterterrorism official who just resigned in protest of the Iran war, is under FBI investigation for leaking classified information.

The investigation predates Kent’s departure, Semafor’s White House correspondent reported.

Joe Kent resigned on Tuesday and said the US started the war against Iran due to pressure from Israel.

That immediately fed my instinct that anyone who resigns in that sort of public fit is likely about to be shown the door and knows it. It does appear that Kent had been a behind-the-scenes source for Tucker Carlson at least since the runup to Operation Midnight Hammer on June 22, 2025:

On Wednesday, Fox News’ Mark Levin accused Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned in protest of the Trump administration’s ongoing operation on Iran on Tuesday, of telling Tucker Carlson about a meeting Levin had with President Donald Trump last summer.

On June 4, 2025, Carlson tweeted that “Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran. To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war. He’s demanding that American troops do it. We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, he and likeminded ideologues in Washington are now arguing.”

Farther down, the link quoted from Levin's Wednesday post,

“I know for a fact Kent leaked to Tucker Carlson a meeting the President had with me, at the President’s request, which Carlson in turn used on the internet. No President should be treated like that,” revealed Levin. “Apparently, there were more. Not good. And the appalling antisemitism in Kent’s public letter deserves judgment, which is why so many of all faiths are condemning it.”

This strongly suggests that the investigation of Kent's leaking had to do with Tucker Carlson, and the axe was likely to fall. But Kent's ties aren't just to Carlson, and they don't just involve Iran:

🚨Was Joe Kent Candace Owens’ mole in the US government, feeding her information about the Charlie Kirk investigation?

On October 1, 2025, Candace Owens said she was “very aware of what’s going on” and claimed that “about 48 hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie Kirk informed… pic.twitter.com/I0A7QvIU5L

— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) March 19, 2026

The tweet goes on to say that Joe Kent was investigating allegations that Charlie Kirk was assassinated because he was going to turn against Israel, and the FBI was preventing him from looking into it:

On October 1, 2025, Candace Owens said she was “very aware of what’s going on” and claimed that “about 48 hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie Kirk informed people at Turning Point, Jewish donors, as well as a rabbi, that he had no choice but to abandon the pro-Israel cause.”

. . . The New York Times reported on October 28 that Joe Kent, while still serving as director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, had:

“examined FBI files in the last several weeks to investigate whether the man charged with assassinating Charlie Kirk had support from someone else, a foreign power, or another entity, according to multiple people with knowledge of the matter.”

Which, according to the Times article:

“alarmed Kash Patel, the director of the FBI. Mr. Patel and other senior officials believed Mr. Kent was overstepping, treading on FBI responsibilities, and potentially interfering with the investigation and the prosecution of the suspect, Tyler Robinson.”

After resigning from his role as director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show today. Speaking about the Charlie Kirk investigation, he said, “there’s still linkage for us to investigate,” and pointed directly to the group chat text messages that Andrew Kolvet had handed over to the US government - and that Candace Owens had used on her show - as evidence of that.

So all of a sudden, via Joe Kent of all people, we're drawn into the Candace Owens-Erika Kirk feud, of the specifics of which I had known almost nothing. I asked my AI oracle to fill me in: "What is the basis for Candace Owens's complaints against Erika Kirk?" It answered,

Candace Owens’s complaints against Erika Kirk, the widow of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) founder Charlie Kirk, primarily stem from Owens's refusal to accept the official account of Charlie Kirk's 2025 assassination. Owens has used her podcast to launch an "investigative series" titled "Bride of Charlie," accusing Erika of personal dishonesty and complicity in a broader cover-up.

. . . Owens disputes that the charged gunman, Tyler Robinson, acted alone or was even the real killer. She has alleged the murder was an "inside job" involving TPUSA employees and foreign governments, including Israel, France, and Egypt.

. . . In episodes like "EXPLOSIVE! What Erika Kirk Was Doing In Epstein's Orbit," Owens attempted to link Erika to Jeffrey Epstein based on tenuous connections to a modeling agency, though no evidence of direct contact has been provided.

Ah, so the idea that Tyler Robinson had a trans furry boyfriend is completely irrelevant, Robinson wasn't even the shooter, it was done by World Jewry via Epstein, who was years in the grave but no matter, because Charlie Kirk was going to break free of Erika's manipulation and out the Jewish connection with TPUSA! And Joe Kent was investigating this on Candace Owens's behalf, except Kash Patel doesn't want him overstepping!

You know what? My respect for Kash Patel just went zooming upward. But this also goes to the overall nuttiness behind the so-called war within MAGA. There seems to be a real strain of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory at the heart of the rift, except that MAGA itself so far hasn't bought in:

CNN forced to show that President Trump has a 100% APPROVAL rating among MAGA voters.

"He’s the 1972 Miami Dolphins." pic.twitter.com/lNjdIBKG8s

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 18, 2026

I have no problem believing that Joe Kent had been kept out of the ODNI loop for months, even if he was still in the office. I would also surmise that Tulsi Gabbard and the others at ODNI hadn't pushed Kent out sooner simply because he was kept from doing more harm, he was basically a nut, and they had a lot of other higher-priority stuff on their plate.

But what does this say about Tucker Carlson and the others, like Megyn Kelly, on Tucker's side of the putative MAGA rift?

All Of A Sudden, We Get A Pretty Boy In A Bad Toupee

We're in a strange slow-news period: media, both legacy and alt, had to work for a couple of weeks following the Iran attacks, but around the time the gayattolah story broke, they all left for spring break, and we're back in a silly season. Hormuz? Blip. More dead mullahs? Blip. Cuba? Blip. Instead, we get a big story all gift wrapped with a cute bow on it featuring a jut-jawed special forces type straight from central casting but with retro 70s sideburns and an incongruous wavy hairpiece, Joe Kent:

Donald Trump's top counterterrorism official has resigned over the war in Iran, urging the president to "reverse course".

In a letter posted on X, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent said that Iran posed "no imminent threat" to the US and claimed the administration "started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby".

. . . Kent, 45, is a US special forces and CIA veteran whose wife, navy cryptologic technician Shannon Kent, was killed in a suicide bombing in Syria in 2019.

The father-of-two deployed 11 times overseas with the US military, including with the US Army's special forces in Iraq.

He later became a paramilitary officer at the CIA, before leaving government service following his wife's death.

Kent cited his military service and his wife's death in his letter, saying that he "cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives".

Before yesterday, I'd never heard of the guy, but I saw he'd run twice for a Washington House seat and lost. Looking at his photos, I surmised that he lost because everyone saw he was a big phony. Apparently it was slightly more complicated than that, according to Commentary:

In 2022 he saw an opportunity when Washington state’s six-term Republican representative, Jaime Herrera Beutler, voted to impeach Donald Trump. Kent ousted Beutler in the primary and then lost the seat to the Democrats. His general election loss to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez came after revelations that he “courted prominent white nationalists and posed recently for a photograph with a media personality who has previously described Adolf Hitler as a ‘complicated historical figure’ who ‘many people misunderstand.’”

Kent took a second shot at Perez two years later and lost again. His loyalty to Trump at the expense of the Republican Party was rewarded with a federal job close to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. While Gabbard has been able to temper her isolationist leanings, Kent apparently had had enough.

His resignation letter is a remarkable document, perfect for the right-wing’s podcast-bro laziness and Jews-on-the-brain paranoia.

The administration's reaction is in line with that assessment: somehow he was given the sort of patronage job that's given to losers in the last election, but it sounds like it was also what the Japanese call a "window seat" -- no real duties.

Senior admin official says Joe Kent was “a known leaker” - and was cut out of POTUS intelligence briefings months ago. He has not been part of any Iran planning discussions or briefings at all.

Official says also the White House told DNI Gabbard Kent should be fired for…

— Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) March 17, 2026

The Commentary link continues,

It’s as if somebody wrote a resignation letter twenty years ago and then put it on ice for just the right moment.

. . . Kent is applying for membership in the microphone muftis, the conservative podcasters obsessed with Israel.

In other news,

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson will interview Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, on Wednesday evening.

“Joe Kent, live on TCN at 6:00 pm EST,” Carlson wrote on X.

So it's starting to sound like this wasn't arranged by legacy media, it was set up by Tucker Carlson. I asked my AI oracle, "Do Joe Kent and Tucker Carlson have the same toupee dealer?" It replied,

There is no public evidence or credible reporting to suggest that Joe Kent and Tucker Carlson share a "toupee dealer" or that either man wears a toupee.

While they are close friends and political allies, their connection is based on shared ideological views rather than hair care.

Are you kidding me? I asked a follow-up: "What are typical tells that a man is wearing a hairpiece?" It gave me several links, including this:

A hair density that does not match your own on the back and sides or a density that is not age-appropriate can be one of the biggest giveaways that you’re wearing a hair system. It’s important not to get too ‘greedy’ when it comes to your hair system. The chance to have hair again can encourage men to choose a density that is too heavy or thick to pass as their own hair. Generally speaking, the younger you are, the denser your hair will be.

Kent is 45, Carlson is 56. Both are trying to look like they have the hair of 22-year-old hipsters. The link continues,

You can’t just position your hair system anywhere on your head. Position it too low or too high and it will just look off. It should be positioned exactly where your own natural hairline starts.

. . . To find your hairline take four fingers and place the bottom finger at the bottom of your eyebrows. Your hairline will begin at the top of the top finger.

So I asked another follow-up: "Where can I get a hair system that makes me look like Tucker Carlson?" It quit shilly-shallying and told me the truth:

To achieve a look similar to the thick, voluminous hairstyle of Tucker Carlson, you can purchase high-density hair systems from specialized retailers like Lordhair, New Times Hair, or LaVivid. His signature style is characterized by a stable side part and a medium-to-high hair density that maintains its color and volume without graying.

$279 and up. But it seems like MAGA isn't buying anything Tucker has to offer, Joe Kent, phony hair, or politics:

Polling throughout the nearly three-week U.S.-Israeli military operation against Iran has consistently shown near-unanimous backing for President Donald Trump’s decision to launch Operation Epic Fury among the MAGA base and overwhelming support among Republicans, while a new Rasmussen Reports survey released Monday finds that a majority of likely voters overall say the operation has been succeeding.

The Rasmussen poll found that 61 percent of likely voters say the military operation against Iran has been successful so far, including 35 percent who describe it as “very successful.”

Also,

🚨 BREAKING: CNN was just FORCED to report that nearly 90% of the MAGA base SUPPORTS President Trump's military campaign against Iran

"MAGA GOP...look at this! Nearly 9 in 10, 89% APPROVE!"

"Just 9% disapprove of it. This is TREMENDOUSLY popular among the Republican base." 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/k03H5oKoSD

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 17, 2026

If you want to see an example of a good toupee, check out William Shatner:

He has always denied that he wore a wig, but almost all William Shatner pictures have one, and the story is that he has been spotted in hair replacement centers in Los Angeles. In fact, one particularly persistent rumor suggests he paid approximately $25,000 for a high-quality William Shatner hair system. Indeed, his hair has become such a cultural phenomenon that dedicated blogs discuss its history and significance, with one of his Star Trek hairpieces now being auctioned starting at $2,801.

One of the problems both Carlson and Kent have is they're too cheap to buy convincing toupees, and that bleeds through to the rest of their message.

How Does She Know?

Via the AP,

The social media feud between former Fox News colleagues Megyn Kelly and Mark Levin hit a new level Sunday with Kelly hitting her rival below the belt — literally.

Sunday’s back-and-forth began when Levin called Kelly an “emotionally unhinged, lewd, and petulant wreck.”

“She’s completely revealed and destroyed herself,” Levin continued. “She’s everything people say she is, but much worse. Never an intelligent, thoughtful, or substantive comment. Utterly toxic.”

Kelly hit back by writing, “Micropenis Mark @marklevinshow thinks he has the monopoly on lewd.”

“He tweets about me obsessively in the crudest, nastiest terms possible. Literally more than some stalkers I’ve had arrested. He doesn’t like it when women like me fight back. Bc of his micropenis,” Kelly added.

I asked my AI oracle, "How does she know?" It replied,

Kelly's comments appear to be a rhetorical insult rather than a claim based on firsthand physical knowledge. She framed the remark as a response to what she described as his "obsessive" and "crude" posting about her, which she claimed exceeded the behavior of stalkers she had previously had arrested.

On March 16, 2026, she further taunted him, calling him a "SMALL MAN" after President Donald Trump posted a message on Truth Social defending Levin.

This is just one episode in the food fight that's broken out on the right since even before the attacks on Iran. From Nicole Russell not long ago in USA Today:

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's horrifying assassination on Sept. 10, I hoped that at least something good might come from it. I did see a renewed energy among conservatives, revival among young people and a message of forgiveness, the heart of Christianity, on the national stage for all to see.

But in the months since he died, something else has risen up, too: Candace Owens, a former colleague of Charlie Kirk, and her ever-spiraling grift. At first, I was saddened by the grip she seemed to have on everyday conservatives, caught up in her bombastic storytelling and bizarre tendency toward conspiracy theories.

. . . But I actually think it's far worse than this. I don't think Owens actually questions Kirk's grief, marriage or life story: I think she knows there is a conservative influencer spot to fill so she can earn followers, clicks, likes and money. She's good at one thing – manipulating people − and she's doing this very well right now, to people who presumably call themselves conservatives.

From The New York Times,

As the joint U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran rolls into its third week, leading figures of the MAGA movement have attacked each other with increasing vehemence over the wisdom of the war, and more broadly, what the American relationship to the Jewish state should be.

The debate reflects a widening rift within the American conservative movement. For decades, conservatives were stalwart supporters of the Jewish state, but over the last few years, some have grown disenchanted with Israel and its role in American politics. The disagreements have only intensified since the attacks began on Feb. 28.

. . . Tucker Carlson, the well-known podcaster, has been selling ball caps, T-shirts and coffee mugs emblazoned with messages like, “Neocons are Gay For Israel” and “AIPAC An Offer You Can’t Refuse,” crude and unsubtle and attacks on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobbying group, and other defenders of Israel.

Mr. Carlson has called the strikes “absolutely disgusting and evil” and said they occurred because “Israel wanted it to happen.”

Similar anti-Israel sentiments have been expressed by other far-right figures, including the podcaster Alex Jones and former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, as well as by more moderate voices like the podcaster Joe Rogan and the influential conservative intellectual and Trump critic Andrew Sullivan.

One of the most recent developments in this feud is a lengthy X post by "insurrection barbie" that was endorsed by Sen Ted Cruz. It's an indication of how ignorant the attacks have become:

For most of Christian history, the dominant theological position regarding the Jewish people was supersessionism — Replacement Theology: the belief that the Christian Church has superseded the Jewish people as inheritor of God’s covenant promises. Under this view, the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are now fulfilled in the Church, and the Jewish people have no ongoing special covenantal status.

I believe that under near-universal Christian theology, there are actually several different covenants that cover the Old Testament period. The Mosaic Covenent, instituted under Moses, is just one of them, based on the law but fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and it is no longer binding on Christians. However, the Abrahamic Covenant, established by the visit of the three figures to Abraham, is eternal. It promises a homeland for the Jews, and the word "eternal" is used several times in Genesis to describe it. It is separate from the Mosaic Covenent and is not replaced by the New Covenant, but it applies only to the Jews. This position is standard in Catholic and Main Line Protestant theology.

"Insurrection barbie" is incorrect if she attributes either to Catholics of any tradition or Evangelicals generally the view that the Abrahamic Covenant is superseded by the New Covenant. On one hand, though, there are Catholics who openly question either the validity of the Second Vatican Council or the authority of recent popes, who may also find reason to question basic Catholic catechesis as a result. There are figures like Edwwrd Feser who seem to tend towsard this sort of error -- if, as he says, recent popea are wrong, for instance, about the death penalty, where else might they also be wrong?

And of course, there are radical Evangelicals like the YouTuber Mark Dice who claim that you don't need to be baptized to be a Christian. The only thing to say there is that not everyone who wears a big cross on their chest is a Christian, and it's important to be careful. The view that all the Old Testament covenants are superseded by the New Covenant is not mainstream and by no means universal among Christians.

These are some of the mistaken positions that are finding their way into the current debate over Israel. On the other hand, there seems to be a reluctance to recognize that many traditional US allies have become incapable of actually supporting the US in a major conflict, even if they had the political will to do this. This includes the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, while Israel has both the capability and the political will. This is a major recalibration that the US hasn't necessarily seen the need to undertake, and it's probably at the root of some of the current anti-Israel talk.

I think the takeaway here is that making a big deal of publicly opposing the Iran attacks, whatever else it may be, is clickbait, and many people, like Megyn Kelly or Tucker Carlson, who do this have either lost their legacy media platforms or want to increase their reach, and their motives aren't idealistic. And hey, even Edward Feser has acknowledged that he's spending a lot more time on X lately, which I suspect may be taking away from time even he might devote to peer-revied scholarship.

Crepituum sacra fames!

That's Not A Bug, It's A Feature!

It's hard to tell if the latest reports on Mojtaba Khamenei were dug up after diligent search by US and Israeli intelligence, or if they were deliberately planted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- the cumulative effect is the same. As of this morning, for instance,

President Trump was stunned to learn last week that US intelligence indicates new Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei may be gay — and that his father, the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, feared his suitability to rule the Islamic Republic for that reason, The Post can reveal.

Trump couldn’t contain his surprise and laughed aloud when he was briefed on the intel, according to sources.

So OK, Mojtaba's gay, but he's in a coma, so it doesn't matter -- and who benefits from this state of affairs? The Revolutionary Guard, who reportedly pressured the Assembly of Experts to name him Supreme Leader on his father's death. They wanted a non-entity in that role from the start. And in another wrinkle over the weekend,

Several international reports now claim that Mojtaba Khamenei may have been secretly transported to Russia for medical treatment after sustaining injuries during early strikes in the conflict. According to these claims, he could be recovering at a private medical facility connected to one of Vladimir Putin’s residences.

However, neither Iranian nor Russian officials have confirmed these reports, leaving the situation surrounded by uncertainty and speculation.

Or he could be just plain dead.

With speculation rife, even Donald Trump is unsure if Mojtaba Khamenei is dead or alive.

“I don’t know if he’s even alive. So far, nobody’s been able to show him,” he told NBC.

Gay, in a coma in Iran, in a coma in Russia, or dead -- it's all the same, he's a cipher, a Great Pumpkin in the constitutinal scheme. If he's gay, he'll be out if he ever wakes up. If he's in Russia, it means he's alive, but he's beyond anyone's ability to take him out with bunker busters, while it's also convenient to have him effectively in exile, and he'll likely stay there. If he's dead, the Revolutionary Guard seems in no hurry to replace him.

However, although the usual blatherers explain Iran's constitution as a limited theocracy (or something like that), what they say bears no resemblance to reality. Here's how it's supposed to be:

After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the position and office of supreme leader was created by the Iranian Constitution. It is based on the concept of the Guardianship of the Jurist, or “Velayat-e Faqih.”

. . . According to articles 57 and 110 of the constitution, the supreme leader sets domestic and foreign policy and supervises all branches of the government, including the executive, legislature and judiciary. Through the Guardian Council, he has the power to vet electoral candidates and veto parliamentary laws.

. . . While the supreme leader is the head of state, the president is the head of the government. After the supreme leader, the president is the second-in-command of the executive branch. As such, he answers to the supreme leader and executes his decrees.

. . . In 1979, the Assembly of Experts of Leadership, or Majles-e Khobregan-e Rahbari, was created in the new constitution and held its first election the same year. Article 111 of the constitution authorizes the assembly to appoint, supervise and, if necessary, remove the supreme leader.

. . . In essence, the supreme leader approves the candidates who are potentially elected to a body that oversees him. For this reason, as observers point out, the assembly has not been known to seriously supervise or overtly challenge him.

Except that reports from inside Iran indicate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard told the Assembly of Experts to elect Mojtaba Khamenei, Ali Khamenei's gay and bumbling son who may be dead, Iran's new Supreme Leader. But as with everything else, Article 110 of Iran's constitution puts the Supreme Leader over the Revolitionary Guard. How does the Revolutionary Guard get to elect the Supreme Leader? I asked my AI oracle just that. It answered,

As of March 16, 2026, reports indicate that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) secured Mojtaba Khamenei's appointment as Supreme Leader through a combination of intense political pressure, physical threats, and strategic manipulation of the Assembly of Experts' emergency sessions following the assassination of Ali Khamenei on February 28, 2026.

. . . The IRGC Intelligence Organization allegedly threatened Assembly members and their families to ensure a vote for Mojtaba.

. . . Commanders applied "heavy pressure" through constant phone calls and in-person meetings leading up to the vote.

The IRGC insisted on a rapid decision, arguing that the wartime situation required immediate leadership.

Opponents were given limited time to present arguments, and some sessions were conducted online or in undisclosed locations to minimize dissent and outside interference.

So the IRGC, arguing that the wartime situation required immediate leadership, pushed through the election of a bumbling gay guy whom they already knew was in a coma. This might be desgnated a coup, but my guess is that it was already the case that the former Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was kept in power by the IRGC, which had been the de facto power running the state pretty much from the start.

Edward Feser argues that Trump's attack on Iran doesn't fit "just war doctrine" because it hasn't been undertaken by the proper constitutional authority (although he neglects to mention that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives Trump precisely the authorization he is using to conduct this operation). But if he insists that Trump observe all the constitutional niceties -- which in fact he is -- then what of the IRGC, which has put in place a puppet Supreme Leader who may even be unaware that his country is at war, when he would be expected to make national policy under Iran's constitution?

This goes to the basic quesiton of how a state can negotiate with a state that doesn't gtve its negotiators the power to negotiate in any practical way, because the source of state authority is so unclear.

It's worth recognizing that the victories over both Germany and Japan in World War II could be effected only when Hitler's suicide gave his designated successor, Dönitz, the clear state authority to order surrender. In Japan, the use of the second nuclear bomb in particular forced a cabinet deadlock in which the emperor finally had to assert his authority to order surreneder, and this was effective only after an attempted coup to remove him.

This suggests that some equivalent crisis of state authority in Iran will be needed to end the current war. It will likely involve a removal of the IRGC from de facto control of the state.