Politics

Tucker Carlson: “Epstein Was a Mossad Spy”

Published

6 months ago

July 13, 2025

This article is an exploration of Tucker Carlson’s opinions and arguments. The views expressed are his alone and do not reflect those of Bolanle Media or its editorial team.

The Power of the Unanswered Question

There’s a certain electricity in the air whenever the name Jeffrey Epstein comes up. The story has become a kind of cultural Rorschach test: a scandal, a mystery, a symbol of everything people feel is broken about power in America. But what happens when someone insists on asking the questions everyone else wants to sweep under the rug?

Tucker Carlson, never one to shy from controversy, has taken the Epstein discourse to a new level. In his view, the real scandal isn’t just Epstein’s crimes—it’s the refusal of those in power to answer the most basic questions about them. For Carlson, the heart of the matter is this: Why did Epstein have so much money, so many connections, and so much apparent immunity? And, most explosively, on whose behalf was he operating?

The Mossad Theory: Carlson’s Central Claim

Carlson’s position is unambiguous: he believes that Jeffrey Epstein was not simply a lone predator, but was working for foreign intelligence—specifically, Israel’s Mossad. He frames this not as a wild conspiracy, but as a logical question stemming from the facts as he sees them:

Epstein’s meteoric rise: How does a former math teacher with no college degree end up with private jets, a private island, and the largest residence in Manhattan?
Foreign connections: Why did Epstein have such close ties to high-ranking Israeli officials and other foreign actors?
Lack of transparency: Why, after years of investigations and media coverage, do basic questions about Epstein’s finances and operations remain unanswered?

Carlson is adamant: asking these questions is not an act of hate or bigotry. It is, in his view, the duty of a free citizen.

The Right to Ask—and the Pushback

A central theme in Carlson’s argument is the right to ask uncomfortable questions—and the dangers of a culture that tries to silence them. He rails against what he sees as a new orthodoxy: if you question official narratives, you’re dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or worse. If you ask about foreign influence, you’re labeled a bigot.

“When you ask a direct question to someone in charge, you are due. That person is morally bound to give you an answer. He’s not bound to agree with you, but he’s bound to stop and answer your question.”

For Carlson, the refusal to answer—or even to allow the question—signals something deeper: a system that no longer respects its citizens, a leadership class that feels unaccountable, and a media that polices the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

The Broader Frustration

Carlson’s Epstein argument is not just about one man or one scandal. It’s about the frustration of ordinary people watching the powerful evade accountability—whether it’s billionaires, bureaucrats, or foreign governments. He draws a direct line from the Epstein case to broader issues of economic inequality, political corruption, and the erosion of trust in American institutions.

He argues that the “Epstein problem” is a microcosm for a larger crisis: a system where the rules don’t seem to apply to the elite, and where ordinary people are told to stop asking questions and accept whatever they’re told.

Why This Matters

For Carlson, the stakes are nothing less than the health of American democracy. He insists that citizens have a right—and a duty—to demand answers from those in power, no matter how uncomfortable those questions may be. He warns that silencing dissent and policing inquiry do not make problems go away; they only drive resentment underground.

“Criticizing the behavior of a government agency does not make you a hater. It makes you a free person. It makes you a citizen.”

Final Thoughts

Whether or not one agrees with Tucker Carlson’s conclusions, his insistence on the right to ask is a reminder of something fundamental: A free society depends on the ability to question, to doubt, and to demand answers from those who wield power. The Epstein saga, in Carlson’s telling, is not just about one man’s crimes—it’s about who gets to ask questions, who gets to decide what’s important, and who gets to be heard.

In the end, Carlson’s argument is less about proving a particular theory and more about defending the principle that no question—especially about those in power—should ever be off-limits.

News

US May Completely Cut Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

Published

4 weeks ago

November 30, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.

What Trump Is Saying

Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.

How Taxes Work Now

Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.

Questions From Experts

Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.

What Congress Must Do

The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.

What It Means Right Now

For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.

News

Candace Owens Says Macrons Funded Plot to Kill Her

Published

1 month ago

November 24, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Conservative commentator Candace Owens has made explosive allegations that French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron orchestrated and financed a plot to assassinate her. Owens alleges that she was alerted by a high-ranking source within the French government who revealed that the assassination was to be carried out by an elite French police unit, the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group (GIGN), along with the involvement of at least one Israeli operative. According to Owens, this “joint state operation” was motivated by her outspoken coverage and conspiratorial claims about Brigitte Macron, including controversial statements questioning the First Lady’s gender identity.

Owens further claims the payments for the assassination were funneled through a secret French elite club called Club des Cent, suggesting a sophisticated and well-financed scheme. She also links this alleged plot to the assassination of her late friend Charlie Kirk in 2025, suggesting that his killer received training from France’s 13th Foreign Legion Brigade and that these events are part of a larger multi-state conspiracy.

Despite these serious accusations, Owens has not publicly shared concrete evidence, and French, Israeli, and American authorities have not confirmed any part of the story. The Macron family has previously filed defamation lawsuits against Owens over her unfounded assertions about them, highlighting a tense and ongoing feud.

Owens has vowed to provide further details, including identities and financial proof, if given the opportunity, and has called on the public and patriotic investigators to examine the matter closely. While her claims have stirred widespread attention and heated debate across social media and conservative circles, they currently remain unsubstantiated allegations amid a highly charged political and media environment.

This controversy adds a new and dramatic layer to Owens’ volatile relationship with the Macrons, marking perhaps the most sensational claim so far in her ongoing public disputes with the French presidential couple.

News

Fugees Rapper Pras Michel Sentenced to 14 Years in Campaign Scandal

Published

1 month ago

November 21, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Pras Michel, Grammy-winning rapper and founding member of the iconic group the Fugees, has been sentenced to 14 years in federal prison for his role in a sprawling illegal campaign finance and foreign influence scheme. The sentencing was handed down on November 20, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., following Michel’s conviction in April 2023 on charges including conspiracy, money laundering, acting as an unregistered foreign agent, and witness tampering.

At the heart of the scandal was Michel’s involvement in funneling over $120 million from fugitive Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho—known as Jho Low—into the 2012 reelection campaign of former President Barack Obama. Prosecutors detailed how Michel helped hide the origin of foreign donations through shell companies and straw donors, violating U.S. campaign finance laws that prohibit foreign contributions. Beyond the Obama campaign, Michel also engaged in illegal lobbying efforts during the Trump administration to obstruct investigations into Low’s role in the notorious 1MDB scandal, a massive Malaysian sovereign wealth fund corruption case.

Prosecutors described Michel as having “betrayed his country for financial gain,” persistently lying and manipulating government entities over nearly a decade. They advocated for a life sentence, emphasizing the severity of his offenses and the threat posed to U.S. national security. Testimonies during the high-profile trial included notable figures such as Hollywood actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Michel’s defense team condemned the harsh sentence as “entirely disproportionate,” arguing that similar cases resulted in lighter penalties, and pointed out that Michel received no espionage charges—a key consideration in foreign agent prosecutions. They announced plans to appeal the verdict and sentence. Following the prison term, Michel faces three years of supervised release and forfeiture of more than $64 million tied to the illegal campaign finance activity.

Michel, who shot to fame in the 1990s as part of the Fugees alongside Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean, now confronts a dramatic fall from grace that underscores the extensive consequences of illicit foreign influence in American politics. Despite this setback, his representatives remain grateful for the support received, stating that this chapter does not mark the end of his journey.

This landmark case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of safeguarding U.S. elections from covert foreign interference and the serious repercussions for those who betray democratic principles for financial gain.bbc+4