US Political News and Trump’s China visit
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Some people can’t believe what they watched, so much so, they got a body language expert, the head of an association of body language experts to decipher what happened.
IMHO, both men want to see NYC do well. For Trump, it’s his legacy and chance to win over enough of New York, so in 2029 he could return to NYC in the good graces of elite society, across the aisle, while for Mamdani, it’s his big break.
Whatever it was, I have observed the people around me breathe a sigh of relief, that these two are working together respectfully, and we can move on with our own personal businesses. There was a nice quiet and calmness in the air this weekend in New York. Thanksgiving is gonna be interesting for many families.
Waiting to see this meeting covered on South Park and/or SNL. Mamdani’s character is gonna be something like the “Magical Affordability Genie”/“Trump whisperer”
.
Last edited:
Foreign Fake MAGA Anti-Israel Accounts Exposed In X “Location” Disclosure
Now we know that it was all a massive foreign influence operation of fake MAGA accounts meant not to promote Trump, but to turn Americans against Jews and Israel and to sow chaos and division among actual Trump supporters.Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, November 23, 2025 at 09:26pm 17 Comments
If you have spent any time on X (fka Twitter), you know that it is a cesspool of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, frequently neo-Nazi accounts that purport to be “America First” and “MAGA” and posting from the United States, frequently red states.
The X algorithms for the “For You” feed were unbearable.
But I and many others suspected that many, if not most, of these accounts, particularly the ones that purported to be “MAGA” were fakes.
It was part of the worldwide information war against Israel, the only successful war the people who now identify as Palestinians have ever fought. From false claims of Genocide and Famine to inflated casualty numbers, to concealing that Hamas fought from under, within, and around hospitals and schools, the goal was to turn people in the West — and particularly among younger conservatives — against Israel. The Tucker Carlsons of the podcast and influencer world fed off and amplified these social media narratives.
Now we know that it was all a massive foreign influence operation of fake MAGA accounts meant not to promote Trump, but to turn Americans against Jews and Israel and to sow chaos and division among actual Trump supporters.
If it’s happening on X, it’s happening elsewhere on social media.
X has turned live a “location” function that lets you know from where the account is posting (and whether they are trying to hide location through a VPN). The result is that many of the most manipulative supposedly MAGA accounts were frauds posting from abroad.
For the record, here’s me, in America.
The mainstream media is portraying this disclosure as meaning Trump did not have real support, but that’s a total distortion of what happened. These were malicious accounts sowing mayhem in Trump World, not supporting Trump.
There are too many examples to list, but here are some X posts that aggregate the fakers or reveal particularly egregious examples.
https://twitter.com/EFischberger/st...el-accounts-exposed-in-x-location-disclosure/
Here’s the warning X gives of use of a VPN.
https://twitter.com/orenbarsky/status/1992475238735732991
Not surprisingly, there were lots of fake accounts reporting on supposed atrocities in Gaza.
https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1992574049302753559
https://twitter.com/MaxNordau/status/1992080602590330883
https://twitter.com/MaxNordau/status/1992381192084336790
https://twitter.com/bonchieredstate/status/1992215567202455923
https://twitter.com/HuntersOfNazis/status/1992078512497574288
And a lot of pro-Fuentes foreign Groyper accounts:
https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1992367711092179065
https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1992415948759081371
https://twitter.com/JayTC53/status/1992374363308593615
Accounts are being taken down or reconfigured once exposed:
https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1992189676589887909
https://twitter.com/micah_erfan/status/1991944591701168291
https://twitter.com/EYakoby/status/1992100296710132178
j_hungary
Professional
Some people can’t believe what they watched, so much so, they got a body language expert, the head of an association of body language experts to decipher what happened.
IMHO, both men want to see NYC do well. For Trump, it’s his legacy and chance to win over enough of New York, so in 2029 he could return to NYC in the good graces of elite society, across the aisle, while for Mamdani, it’s his big break.
Whatever it was, I have observed the people around me breathe a sigh of relief, that these two are working together respectfully, and we can move on with our own personal businesses. There was a nice quiet and calmness in the air this weekend in New York. Thanksgiving is gonna be interesting for many families.
Waiting to see this meeting covered on South Park and/or SNL. Mamdani’s character is gonna be something like the “Magical Affordability Genie”/“Trump whisperer”
That's because both Mandani and Trump are basically the same person with opposite ideologies. Especially now if the Dem establishment declares open war on Mandani. If we use Hitler to compare to Trump, then Mandani would be Stalin. Both are populist leaders. In terms of being a person, they are the same build, and only they believe in a different ideology.
I had watched my old Politics Professor's podcast (not gonna name who) but he raise a very good points, they are basically both chasing the same thing, both are populist, and if Mandani or Trump are willing to change their ideology, they could be a power couple. But the thing is, one is a 2 term president, and the other was an immigrant, they can't be helping each other because there are nothing to be gain on either of them, Trump is not going to be able to extract from Mandani as he will NEVER be in top position, and Mandani can't extract anything from Trump as he already is behind his prime.
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
Folks, we all know there are a LOT of fake accounts on X. And, I doubt it is limited to just X.
We've now had enough posts here regarding the issue that everyone should be skeptical of anything posted on X. Even if it is a "verified" account. Just last night, a member here posted a link to an "X" posting believing it to be from the official DHS X account.
It was not.
We've now had enough posts here regarding the issue that everyone should be skeptical of anything posted on X. Even if it is a "verified" account. Just last night, a member here posted a link to an "X" posting believing it to be from the official DHS X account.
It was not.
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
There is something to say for them being similar, as reflections of their respective generations, boomers and millennials, both wanting to get their share of the pie. While Mamdani would benefit from Trump showering NYC with resources, I actually think Mamdani could give Trump a redemption arc for his post presidency, at least amongst NY elite society, if Trump goes easy on at least the city.
j_hungary
Professional
If Trump goes light on Mandani's "Socialist" behavior, then he will lose his support; he can't play both sides when each side hates the other. If he does, either MAGA will cut him off, or people will cut MAGA off.
That's just not going to happen.
j_hungary
Professional
And this just happened, not surprise, and they can't bring Comey case back, as it is over the Statue of Limitation
A federal judge has dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the grounds that the appointment of the U.S. attorney who brought the indictments was invalid.
The judge dismissed the charges without prejudice, meaning the cases could potentially be refiled by an appropriately appointed U.S. attorney.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie concluded that the appointment of Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unconstitutional and that her actions bringing the case were "unlawful" and "ineffective."
Judge appears skeptical of government's actions as Comey, James press to have cases tossed
"Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey's motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice," she wrote.
Halligan, President Donald Trump's handpicked U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, sought the indictment of Comey and James over the objections of career prosecutors after Trump forced out previous U.S. attorney Erik Siebert who sources said had resisted bringing the cases.
Halligan, who had no experience as a prosecutor, sought the indictment after Trump, in a social media post, called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to act "NOW!!!" to prosecute Comey, James and Rep. Adam Schiff.
Comey pleaded not guilty in October to one count of false statements and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding related to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020, amid what critics call Trump's campaign of retribution against his perceived political foes.
Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images - PHOTO: James Comey speaks, May 30, 2023 in New York City.
Vice President JD Vance has said any such prosecutions are "driven by law and not by politics."
James, who successfully brought a civil fraud case against Trump last year and leads multiple lawsuits challenging his administration's policies, pleaded not guilty in October to charges that she committed mortgage fraud related to a home she purchased in 2020.
https://msft-ssp-apac.adnxs.com/cli...ZL50oGqNxJxya8XSsZwwbXhz-E&campaignid=4040911
Prosecutors said she falsely described a property she purchased in Norfolk, Virginia, as a second home instead of an investment property in order to obtain a lower mortgage rate. James said she purchased the property for her great-niece and allowed her and her children to live in the house rent-free.
"I am heartened by today's victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country," James said in a statement following Friday's ruling. "I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day."
With the statute of limitations for Comey's case set to expire, it is unclear whether the case could be refiled in time. Lawyers for Comey have argued that the statute of limitations has already run out.
Unlike the case against Comey, the allegations against James appear to be well within the statute of limitations should the Department of Justice try to pursue the case again.
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters - PHOTO: New York Attorney General Letitia James speaks to the media after she pleaded not guilty to charges that she defrauded her mortgage lender, outside the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk, Virginia, Oct. 24, 2025.
Under federal law, the attorney general has the authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for 120 days before the appointment power shifts to the judges in that federal district. When U.S. Attorney Jessica Aber, who was President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the office, resigned on Jan. 20, Siebert was appointed as interim U.S. attorney.
After 120 days, the power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney shifted from the attorney general to the judges in the Eastern District of Virginia, who used their authority to allow Siebert to continue serving in his role.
“When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority," Judge Currie wrote in her decision.
Siebert continued to serve lawfully in his position until September, when he resigned following a pressure campaign from the president. Within 48 hours of Trump’s social media post calling for the prosecution of his political foes, Bondi cited the same federal law that allows a 120-day interim appointment to authorize Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney.
Criminal case against Letitia James is a 'garden variety mortgage fraud prosecution,' DOJ argues
After both Comey and James were indicted, Bondi attempted to ratify Haligan's appointment, but Judge Currie rejected that attempt to fix the issue after the fact.
"The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary. It would mean the Government could send any private citizen off the street -- attorney or not -- into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the Attorney General gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law," she wrote.
According to Currie, the decision about who leads the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Eastern Virginia is now in the hands of the judges in that district, until Trump nominates and the Senate confirms a permanent U.S. attorney to take over.
Judge tosses indictments against James Comey and Letitia James
A federal judge has dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the grounds that the appointment of the U.S. attorney who brought the indictments was invalid.
The judge dismissed the charges without prejudice, meaning the cases could potentially be refiled by an appropriately appointed U.S. attorney.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie concluded that the appointment of Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unconstitutional and that her actions bringing the case were "unlawful" and "ineffective."
Judge appears skeptical of government's actions as Comey, James press to have cases tossed
"Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey's motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice," she wrote.
Halligan, President Donald Trump's handpicked U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, sought the indictment of Comey and James over the objections of career prosecutors after Trump forced out previous U.S. attorney Erik Siebert who sources said had resisted bringing the cases.
Halligan, who had no experience as a prosecutor, sought the indictment after Trump, in a social media post, called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to act "NOW!!!" to prosecute Comey, James and Rep. Adam Schiff.
Comey pleaded not guilty in October to one count of false statements and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding related to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020, amid what critics call Trump's campaign of retribution against his perceived political foes.
Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images - PHOTO: James Comey speaks, May 30, 2023 in New York City.
Vice President JD Vance has said any such prosecutions are "driven by law and not by politics."
James, who successfully brought a civil fraud case against Trump last year and leads multiple lawsuits challenging his administration's policies, pleaded not guilty in October to charges that she committed mortgage fraud related to a home she purchased in 2020.
https://msft-ssp-apac.adnxs.com/cli...ZL50oGqNxJxya8XSsZwwbXhz-E&campaignid=4040911
Prosecutors said she falsely described a property she purchased in Norfolk, Virginia, as a second home instead of an investment property in order to obtain a lower mortgage rate. James said she purchased the property for her great-niece and allowed her and her children to live in the house rent-free.
"I am heartened by today's victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country," James said in a statement following Friday's ruling. "I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day."
With the statute of limitations for Comey's case set to expire, it is unclear whether the case could be refiled in time. Lawyers for Comey have argued that the statute of limitations has already run out.
Unlike the case against Comey, the allegations against James appear to be well within the statute of limitations should the Department of Justice try to pursue the case again.
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters - PHOTO: New York Attorney General Letitia James speaks to the media after she pleaded not guilty to charges that she defrauded her mortgage lender, outside the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk, Virginia, Oct. 24, 2025.
Under federal law, the attorney general has the authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for 120 days before the appointment power shifts to the judges in that federal district. When U.S. Attorney Jessica Aber, who was President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the office, resigned on Jan. 20, Siebert was appointed as interim U.S. attorney.
After 120 days, the power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney shifted from the attorney general to the judges in the Eastern District of Virginia, who used their authority to allow Siebert to continue serving in his role.
“When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority," Judge Currie wrote in her decision.
Siebert continued to serve lawfully in his position until September, when he resigned following a pressure campaign from the president. Within 48 hours of Trump’s social media post calling for the prosecution of his political foes, Bondi cited the same federal law that allows a 120-day interim appointment to authorize Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney.
Criminal case against Letitia James is a 'garden variety mortgage fraud prosecution,' DOJ argues
After both Comey and James were indicted, Bondi attempted to ratify Haligan's appointment, but Judge Currie rejected that attempt to fix the issue after the fact.
"The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary. It would mean the Government could send any private citizen off the street -- attorney or not -- into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the Attorney General gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law," she wrote.
According to Currie, the decision about who leads the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Eastern Virginia is now in the hands of the judges in that district, until Trump nominates and the Senate confirms a permanent U.S. attorney to take over.
Governor Abbott Designates Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR As Foreign Terrorist Organizations
November 18, 2025 | Austin, Texas | Press ReleaseGovernor Greg Abbott today designated the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations. This designation authorizes heightened enforcement against both organizations and their affiliates and prohibits them from purchasing or acquiring land in Texas.
“The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR have long made their goals clear: to forcibly impose Sharia law and establish Islam’s ‘mastership of the world,’" said Governor Abbott. "The actions taken by the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR to support terrorism across the globe and subvert our laws through violence, intimidation, and harassment are unacceptable. Today, I designated the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations. These radical extremists are not welcome in our state and are now prohibited from acquiring any real property interest in Texas.”
Read the Governor's proclamation here.
MNZGamerX
Registered Member
The Republican rift: Pick a side, MAGA and MIGA cannot coexist
MAGA’s rise split the American right. The deeper question now is: which flag does the movement follow? America’s, or Israel’s?
Sarp Sinan Hacir
NOV 24, 2025
It represents a fundamental clash over whose interests define the American right: the nation’s, or a foreign ally’s. Yet only one can define the future of the Republican movement.
If America comes first, then its policies, resources, and military must serve domestic priorities – not the ambitions of a foreign ally. If Israel comes first, then American sovereignty is secondary by definition.
The fracture has only sharpened after 7 October 2023 and is now reshaping the American right in real time.
The MAGA revolt against the establishment
For decades, Republican elites aligned their foreign and domestic agendas with neoconservative doctrine: endless wars, global policing, open markets, and a reflexive allegiance to Israel.
That consensus was shattered in 2016. Disaffected voters rallied to Donald Trump, who mocked figures like Jeb Bush, the last of a warmongering dynasty. Under the MAGA banner, the party’s base was recast into a new coalition: conservatives, evangelicals, religious Jews, anti-establishment activists, disillusioned independents, and even some anti-globalist voices from the left.
US President Donald Trump's populist slogan, “America First,” reflected a growing demand for national self-interest in place of international entanglements.
But this ran headfirst into the old guard’s loyalty to Israel. Could a country truly prioritize its own interests while committing unconditionally to a foreign state?
The Flood
When Israel launched its war on Gaza after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October 2023, MAGA’s internal contradiction exploded.
The initial response followed familiar lines with conservative pundits and politicians closing ranks behind Tel Aviv. But as scenes of devastation in Gaza multiplied, many grassroots conservatives began to ask what exactly this alliance serves.
Washington was pouring more into Israel’s war effort than it had into Ukraine – with no debate, no returns, and no regard for American lives or interests. If “America First” meant anything, why was it absent here?
For decades, Republicans had repeated that Israel was “America’s greatest ally.” But Israel does not provide US jobs, technology, or security guarantees. It demands US military protection and drags Washington into regional conflicts it would otherwise avoid.
Initially, the backlash began quietly – online forums, podcast circles, and independent journalists. But it soon went mainstream.
Ben Shapiro, once the intellectual darling of the anti-woke right, found himself defending university campus crackdowns on pro-Palestine protests. This is from the man who once wrote a book titled ‘Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings,’ mocking the liberal left’s emotional politics. Now, under the pretext of protecting Jewish students, free speech was being suspended by Republicans.
For younger conservatives raised on MAGA, this looked like betrayal. If facts do not care about feelings, why were protests being silenced? If cancel culture was the enemy, why were actors, writers, and students being blacklisted for opposing genocide?
A movement under siege
The MAGA rebellion was not only about foreign policy. It was about taking on the entire architecture of US elite power – media, academia, finance, and foreign lobbies. And one lobby in particular became untouchable.
American conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson was ousted from Fox News after amplifying critics of Israel. Right-wing commentator Candace Owens was pushed out of Daily Wire after clashing with Shapiro. Steve Bannon, one of Trump’s early strategists, began warning of Israeli influence in conservative circles.
Nick Fuentes, who rose to prominence through campus debate circuits and became one of the more extreme voices of the MAGA generation, has turned into a lightning rod in the generational fight over Israel. When Carlson recently interviewed him, Shapiro spent an entire episode denouncing both men – accusing Carlson of normalizing antisemitism and warning that Republicans who “cower before the likes of neo-Nazis and their propagandizers ... deserve to lose.”
Yet Fuentes’s long-standing opposition to US military aid for Israel resonated with younger conservatives – particularly men – who were no longer persuaded by traditional justifications for America's unconditional support.
And then came Charlie Kirk– the founder of Turning Point USA. Kirk had built one of the most influential conservative youth movements in the country. He called himself a Zionist, and denied that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
But it was not enough. Because Kirk gave a platform to critics of Israel, donors pulled support. “I've been trying to tell Israel supporters, there's an earthquake coming in this country on this issue, and they don't believe me,” Kirk said in July.
Before his assassination, he reportedly told friends he feared Israel might have him killed. Some even said he sent messages expressing that fear directly. These claims were promptly dismissed as conspiracy theories.
Nevertheless, Kirk’s assassination was a shock to the movement. And it triggered a deeper reckoning. Netanyahu, unprompted, issued a statement insisting Israel had nothing to do with it.
Yet just weeks before, in an interview with Breitbart, Netanyahu was quoted as saying, “Israel is fighting Iran, and you can’t be MAGA if you’re pro-Iran, you can’t be MAGA if you’re anti-Israel. President Trump understands this, and he stands very strongly with us.”
To many, that sounded like a threat.
The Epstein revolt
Alongside the Gaza backlash, another scandal reared its head: Jeffrey Epstein. MAGA supporters believed this was their chance to expose the perversion of elite networks. But Trump hesitated.
Before the 2024 election, he hinted the truth might come out – then cautioned that “many innocent people may get hurt.” Afterward, he turned on his own party members for pressing the issue.
Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) and Thomas Massie demanded transparency. Trump attacked them both. He backed primary challengers against Massie and labeled MTG a traitor, withdrawing his support for her. In response to the escalating pressure and his withdrawal of support, MGT announced she would resign from Congress on 5 January 2026, citing her marginalization by MAGA leadership and the party’s elite.
Epstein’s deep ties to Israeli intelligence – whether through his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell’s Mossad-linked father, Robert Maxwell, or through Ehud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel, along with his access to bipartisan figures – raised uncomfortable questions. Adding to the controversy, leaked emails released by Democrats suggest that Epstein, who Trump once described as a “terrific guy,” said the US president “knew about the girls.”
Once again, MAGA’s confrontation with elite corruption was derailed by loyalty to Israel.
Who decides America’s future?
Two paths now stand before the American right. One leads to renewed sovereignty, to ending foreign entanglements, and putting US interests first. The other continues to place Israel’s priorities above America’s own.
In short: MAGA vs MIGA.
Today, MIGA holds institutional power. AIPAC dominates congressional primaries. Dissent is punished. Trump’s inner circle remains full of hardline Zionists like Laura Loomer. The billionaire Adelson family bankrolled his campaigns.
But MAGA still commands the base. Support for Israel among Republican voters has plummeted – from 65 percent favorable to 50 percent unfavorable. The backlash is real.
And Trump? He straddles the line. He supports Israel militarily, but cuts deals that anger Tel Aviv. He criticizes MTG, but defends Carlson’s right to speak. He fights Iran, but will not commit to regime change.
This balancing act cannot hold. As pressure builds, the Republican Party will be forced to choose.
If it returns to its neocon roots, the MAGA base may walk. If it stands with its base, MIGA must go.
One thing is clear: for one vision to survive, the other MUST fail.
thecradle.co
MAGA’s rise split the American right. The deeper question now is: which flag does the movement follow? America’s, or Israel’s?
Sarp Sinan Hacir
NOV 24, 2025
The US right is undergoing a rupture that is far more decisive than its culture wars or internecine policy disputes. At the core of this split are two incompatible visions: MAGA (Make America Great Again) versus MIGA (Make Israel Great Again).
It represents a fundamental clash over whose interests define the American right: the nation’s, or a foreign ally’s. Yet only one can define the future of the Republican movement.
If America comes first, then its policies, resources, and military must serve domestic priorities – not the ambitions of a foreign ally. If Israel comes first, then American sovereignty is secondary by definition.
The fracture has only sharpened after 7 October 2023 and is now reshaping the American right in real time.
The MAGA revolt against the establishment
For decades, Republican elites aligned their foreign and domestic agendas with neoconservative doctrine: endless wars, global policing, open markets, and a reflexive allegiance to Israel.
That consensus was shattered in 2016. Disaffected voters rallied to Donald Trump, who mocked figures like Jeb Bush, the last of a warmongering dynasty. Under the MAGA banner, the party’s base was recast into a new coalition: conservatives, evangelicals, religious Jews, anti-establishment activists, disillusioned independents, and even some anti-globalist voices from the left.
US President Donald Trump's populist slogan, “America First,” reflected a growing demand for national self-interest in place of international entanglements.
But this ran headfirst into the old guard’s loyalty to Israel. Could a country truly prioritize its own interests while committing unconditionally to a foreign state?
The Flood
When Israel launched its war on Gaza after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October 2023, MAGA’s internal contradiction exploded.
The initial response followed familiar lines with conservative pundits and politicians closing ranks behind Tel Aviv. But as scenes of devastation in Gaza multiplied, many grassroots conservatives began to ask what exactly this alliance serves.
Washington was pouring more into Israel’s war effort than it had into Ukraine – with no debate, no returns, and no regard for American lives or interests. If “America First” meant anything, why was it absent here?
For decades, Republicans had repeated that Israel was “America’s greatest ally.” But Israel does not provide US jobs, technology, or security guarantees. It demands US military protection and drags Washington into regional conflicts it would otherwise avoid.
Initially, the backlash began quietly – online forums, podcast circles, and independent journalists. But it soon went mainstream.
Ben Shapiro, once the intellectual darling of the anti-woke right, found himself defending university campus crackdowns on pro-Palestine protests. This is from the man who once wrote a book titled ‘Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings,’ mocking the liberal left’s emotional politics. Now, under the pretext of protecting Jewish students, free speech was being suspended by Republicans.
For younger conservatives raised on MAGA, this looked like betrayal. If facts do not care about feelings, why were protests being silenced? If cancel culture was the enemy, why were actors, writers, and students being blacklisted for opposing genocide?
A movement under siege
The MAGA rebellion was not only about foreign policy. It was about taking on the entire architecture of US elite power – media, academia, finance, and foreign lobbies. And one lobby in particular became untouchable.
American conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson was ousted from Fox News after amplifying critics of Israel. Right-wing commentator Candace Owens was pushed out of Daily Wire after clashing with Shapiro. Steve Bannon, one of Trump’s early strategists, began warning of Israeli influence in conservative circles.
Nick Fuentes, who rose to prominence through campus debate circuits and became one of the more extreme voices of the MAGA generation, has turned into a lightning rod in the generational fight over Israel. When Carlson recently interviewed him, Shapiro spent an entire episode denouncing both men – accusing Carlson of normalizing antisemitism and warning that Republicans who “cower before the likes of neo-Nazis and their propagandizers ... deserve to lose.”
Yet Fuentes’s long-standing opposition to US military aid for Israel resonated with younger conservatives – particularly men – who were no longer persuaded by traditional justifications for America's unconditional support.
And then came Charlie Kirk– the founder of Turning Point USA. Kirk had built one of the most influential conservative youth movements in the country. He called himself a Zionist, and denied that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
But it was not enough. Because Kirk gave a platform to critics of Israel, donors pulled support. “I've been trying to tell Israel supporters, there's an earthquake coming in this country on this issue, and they don't believe me,” Kirk said in July.
Before his assassination, he reportedly told friends he feared Israel might have him killed. Some even said he sent messages expressing that fear directly. These claims were promptly dismissed as conspiracy theories.
Nevertheless, Kirk’s assassination was a shock to the movement. And it triggered a deeper reckoning. Netanyahu, unprompted, issued a statement insisting Israel had nothing to do with it.
Yet just weeks before, in an interview with Breitbart, Netanyahu was quoted as saying, “Israel is fighting Iran, and you can’t be MAGA if you’re pro-Iran, you can’t be MAGA if you’re anti-Israel. President Trump understands this, and he stands very strongly with us.”
To many, that sounded like a threat.
The Epstein revolt
Alongside the Gaza backlash, another scandal reared its head: Jeffrey Epstein. MAGA supporters believed this was their chance to expose the perversion of elite networks. But Trump hesitated.
Before the 2024 election, he hinted the truth might come out – then cautioned that “many innocent people may get hurt.” Afterward, he turned on his own party members for pressing the issue.
Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) and Thomas Massie demanded transparency. Trump attacked them both. He backed primary challengers against Massie and labeled MTG a traitor, withdrawing his support for her. In response to the escalating pressure and his withdrawal of support, MGT announced she would resign from Congress on 5 January 2026, citing her marginalization by MAGA leadership and the party’s elite.
Epstein’s deep ties to Israeli intelligence – whether through his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell’s Mossad-linked father, Robert Maxwell, or through Ehud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel, along with his access to bipartisan figures – raised uncomfortable questions. Adding to the controversy, leaked emails released by Democrats suggest that Epstein, who Trump once described as a “terrific guy,” said the US president “knew about the girls.”
Once again, MAGA’s confrontation with elite corruption was derailed by loyalty to Israel.
Who decides America’s future?
Two paths now stand before the American right. One leads to renewed sovereignty, to ending foreign entanglements, and putting US interests first. The other continues to place Israel’s priorities above America’s own.
In short: MAGA vs MIGA.
Today, MIGA holds institutional power. AIPAC dominates congressional primaries. Dissent is punished. Trump’s inner circle remains full of hardline Zionists like Laura Loomer. The billionaire Adelson family bankrolled his campaigns.
But MAGA still commands the base. Support for Israel among Republican voters has plummeted – from 65 percent favorable to 50 percent unfavorable. The backlash is real.
And Trump? He straddles the line. He supports Israel militarily, but cuts deals that anger Tel Aviv. He criticizes MTG, but defends Carlson’s right to speak. He fights Iran, but will not commit to regime change.
This balancing act cannot hold. As pressure builds, the Republican Party will be forced to choose.
If it returns to its neocon roots, the MAGA base may walk. If it stands with its base, MIGA must go.
One thing is clear: for one vision to survive, the other MUST fail.
The Republican rift: Pick a side, MAGA and MIGA cannot coexist
MAGA’s rise split the American right. The deeper question now is: which flag does the movement follow? America’s, or Israel’s?
thecradle.co
MNZGamerX
Registered Member
The Trump administration’s cavalier approach to the rule of law is the end of an era.
By Keith Johnson, a staff writer at Foreign Policy covering geoeconomics and energy.
November 24, 2025, 12:29 PM
Is the United States now a rogue state?
There are certainly plenty of reasons to believe so—and plenty of people willing to say so. The exhibits of this Trump administration’s disdain for lawfulness, both domestically and internationally, are legion.
The attacks on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean as well as the designation of Venezuela’s leader as the head of a drug cartel—and thus a “terrorist” and a legal target under legal authorities designed to deal with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks—are just the most glaring examples. There are also the threats of military action against Mexico, Nigeria, perhaps Panama, and potentially even Greenland.
There are the questionable tariffs levied on the whole world, an expansion of executive power never contemplated before and currently under Supreme Court review. And there are other tariffs, abusing narrow national security exceptions, that also breach international trade norms. Even seemingly innocent things, such as international maritime shipping standards, are cause for contempt and personal intimidation of foreign diplomats.
There are also the domestic measures, from a rampaging Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol, to U.S. national guard troops being sent to U.S. cities for no reason, to the politicization of the justice system to prosecute Trump’s political opponents. There is a formal end to enforcement of anti-corruption statutes, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and the informal embrace of apparent corruption, from alleged bagfuls of cash to cryptocurrency schemes to gifted 747s.
People deeply versed in statecraft and law—and who served Democratic and Republican administrations in the past—are as much at a loss for adjectives as they are for optimism. They worry that if the United States turns into what is essentially a rogue state, the rest of the world would take note—and not in a good way.
“Trump has no commitment to the rule of law. [Former U.S. President Richard] Nixon, by comparison, seemed at least aware of legal constraints; Trump believes he is the law,” said Harold Koh, the State Department’s legal advisor during the first Obama administration and now a professor at Yale Law School.
“Certainly, now the leaders of the Trump administration seem to be signaling both internally and externally that they don’t care about complying with international law, or domestic law for that matter, and that is a big difference from prior administrations,” said John Bellinger III, the legal advisor for State Department and the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration. He now works as an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
While a country’s respect for black-and-white domestic law and disregard for the often fuzzier international variety of it may seem to be two distinct issues, in the Trump administration, they seem to be part of the same broad phenomenon—one that had been glimpsed and hinted at in years past but never with such clarity as today.
“It’s bad when the U.S. appears to be disdainful of international law,” Bellinger said. “The rest of the world has traditionally looked to the U.S. for legal leadership, and now they are proceeding without us. This is a total change.”
Episodes such as masked immigration agents grabbing people off the street and holding even U.S. citizens in custody, or U.S. troops occupying peaceful American cities are, critics say, an outgrowth of years and decades of similar behavior overseas.
“There is definitely this relationship to domestic lawlessness—it’s the imperial boomerang, and it’s coming back home,” said Matt Duss, the executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former foreign-policy advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders.
These actions have prompted plenty of overt criticism, not just from eminent lawyers and scholars but also from politicians and judges, too.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared outright on X that “America isn’t operating under the rule of law, anymore.”
Mark Wolf, a federal judge appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, quit after 40 years on the bench. “The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out,” he wrote.
The ongoing U.S. military campaign to destroy alleged “narco-vessels” in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—and the legal contortions and disregard for world opinion that have accompanied them—are, of course, Exhibit A. It is an unprecedented and cavalier approach to long-enshrined U.S. and international laws that put clear restraints and restrictions on matters such as extrajudicial killing.
The Trump administration’s efforts to find a legal justification for sidestepping U.S. laws in particular have given rise to an ocean of worried legal commentary by practitioners noting that even previous U.S. administrations that were accused of having scorn for restrictions on the use of lethal force seldom—if ever—went as far as Trump has in pushing legal boundaries.
Those legal justifications go so far as to include a Justice Department memo that grants U.S. service members involved in the boat strikes immunity from prosecution, which seems unnecessary if the strikes were perfectly legal in the first place. Lawmakers who suggested that troops should refuse to follow unlawful orders, as they are in fact obliged to refuse to do under established U.S. military doctrine and international legal precedent, are themselves “traitors,” Trump said on social media.
Declaring profit-interested cocaine dealers “terrorists,” and thus open to willful assassination, also seems self-defeating. It does appear that way so far, with the United Kingdom and Colombia limiting their intelligence-sharing with the United States over the matter.
Issues such as how to deal with actual terrorists abroad were something that came up in many previous administrations, especially during those of former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
“The British government certainly expressed some concerns about U.S. counterterrorism policies in the Bush years, but this is a big step, when our closest ally appears to have concluded that the U.S. may be violating the international law prohibition on targeting civilians,” Bellinger said.
The Obama administration, too, wrestled with the question of the legality of a more aggressive approach to terrorists, and it offered what it said were carefully considered justifications.
“We laid out legal standards. There is a difference between legal force and those that are exercised without law. There is a difference between lawful defense and murdering people,” said Koh, who was the State Department’s legal advisor during the thorniest part of the drone debate.
Clearly, over the decades and even centuries, the United States has played fast and loose with law—especially international law—though that was less well-developed in the 19th century than in recent decades. The Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, multiple interventions in Latin America, internments, the first use of nuclear weapons, and numerous invasions and coups since then have all been controversial at the time and since.
Especially after Sept. 11, 2001, the tug-of-war between those advocating more power for the executive to confront threats and those arguing for restraint has intensified.
“The groundwork was laid before, but especially post-9/11” the unchecked, go-it-alone approach has gained ground, Duss said, comparing recent U.S. foreign policy to the ancient Melian dialogues, which dictate that “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
But the Trump administration has expanded its rejection of the rule of law to novel arenas, such as trade policy. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over the legality of the administration’s broad tariffs. Both sets of tariffs under review rely on a self-declared “national emergency” that the administration says gives it the power to do anything to anyone, anywhere, at any time for any amount of time.
Critics—and even some Supreme Court justices—suspect that the administration is usurping congressional authority and imperiling the constitutional separation of powers.
“This is about whether courts will condone a power grab based on a lie. This is the acid test,” Koh said. If those tariffs are held to be legal under the president’s ability to call anything an emergency, then “the president will return to a king-like status,” he said.
But that is the logical outgrowth of decades of legalistic efforts to empower the president to adequately confront national security threats, a trend that may have started during the U.S. Civil War but has crescendoed since World War II and especially the war on terror.
“Lawyers helped make the problem,” Koh said. “The best protection we have against external threats is presidential power, and nobody fully appreciated that we might have a president who is himself the greatest national security threat. This is a Frankenstein’s monster.”
The problem is less about any single state going rogue, but more about which state it is. For decades, the United States was a driving force in the creation and the maintenance of international law and the rules and norms that underpinned the much-maligned liberal international order. Is the United States passing the torch, or snuffing it out?
“I do think the U.S. is starting to withdraw from the position that it played for much of the 20th century, as did the U.K. for much of the 19th, in enforcing international rules,” said John Yoo, who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush administration and is now at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Such enforcement “is costly, but it brings great benefits to everyone in the world,” Yoo added. “I think the American people are exhausted from it.”
Some of the consequences are clear and immediate, such as the limitations on British intelligence-sharing, which are part of a broader breakdown of the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing pact between Washington and its closest allies.
Bellinger had already flagged exactly those risks in a lecture just weeks after Trump’s first electoral win.
“If the United States violates or skirts international law regarding use of force, it encourages other countries, like Russia or China, to do the same, and it makes it more difficult for the United States to criticize them when they do,” he said in the 2016 Cutler lecture. “And if the United States ignores international law, it also makes our friends and allies who respect international law, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and EU countries, less likely to work with us.”
But if the U.S.-led commitment to upholding international rules is deliberately thrown aside, what country will step into the breach? There are still genuine rogue states out there, including states with nuclear programs that are in violation of international nonproliferation agreements and states that carry out assassination attempts on foreign soil.
“The problem is, who will replace the U.S. as the guarantor of international rules? You could see a world where China is the major world power, which I hope does not happen, or you could see a world where we break up into different regions, but we won’t enforce the rules anymore,” Yoo said.
“In a way, it’s almost as if the Trump administration were accelerating what was going to happen, but with no game plan at all,” he said.
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
I don’t expect Trump to lay out the red carpet but perhaps he won’t go full DC or LA on NYC. But, like you said, he has more reason to want to keep the animosity alive, if only to keep his movement and influence going, at least until his lame duck period, post midterms are in full swing. I guess we will see where his mercurial temper takes us all.
Btw, a lot of MAGA trolls on Twitter seem to be run from outside the country, so perhaps the blowback against Trump for what he chooses to do will be exposed as not fully organic and partially overblown.
Last edited:
Davey Crockett
Elite Member
Presidential Actions
November 24, 2025
www.whitehouse.gov
DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD CHAPTERS AS FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS AND SPECIALLY DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORISTS
Executive OrdersNovember 24, 2025
Designation of Certain Muslim Brotherhood Chapters as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act
www.whitehouse.gov
