President Donald Trump dismissed “false” media claims that the U.S. will be party to a $300 billion fund for Iran, as leaked versions of the initial agreement allege that the regime will receive billions of dollars worth of “cash sweeteners” just to sign a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) on Friday.

“President Donald Trump says the agreed deal with Iran is not final,” BBC reported Wednesday. “Speaking at the G7 summit in France, he adds that the US will “go back to dropping bombs” if he does not like the final agreement.”

The president also rejected the $300 billion fund claim, calling it “false.” “People can invest if they want. I mean, what am I going to do — say nobody’s ever allowed to invest? We’re not investing. We’re not putting up ten cents,” he told reporters.

I’d say it’s about 50/50 that any agreement will be signed at all and released on Friday. Of course, that’s a pretty safe bet; you sort of win either way, because you’ve really predicted nothing except that it will be one or the other.

UPDATE 5:40 PM:

Just a few moments after I wrote and posted the above, I saw that there’s been a briefing from the White House on the deal. It says basically what I wrote yesterday, strangely enough, which was this:

At any rate, it sounds like the agreement is just an agreement to ease pressure on Iran in order to have some future negotiations. Why? Is this mainly a temporary measure about oil prices?

About today’s White House briefing:

“We’re not going to be taking their word for anything,” a senior U.S. official said when asked about “compliance” for Iran’s adherence to the deal, particularly when it comes to nuclear development, adding that the U.S. will “work very closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA].”

Some provisions: a ceasefire (already in effect anyway, I would say), some blather about “mutual respect” (absurd, I would say, but typical diplospeak), more negotiations for 60 days for a “final” deal (which can be extended, so is basically meaningless), opening Hormuz – and the rest of it is mostly just things that might happen in a final agreement. A wish list, as it were.

What will happen more immediately is this:

The United States of America undertakes, but immediately upon the signing of this MOU, and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives and all associated services including banking, transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.

There’s also this, which is somewhat opaque as to when it would happen:

The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use, the frozen, or restricted funds, and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of the MOU, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will usually agree on the procedures related to the relief of these funds during the negotiation. Such funds, whether retained in the original accounts or transferred, government may be fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The opaque part is whether this happens right away or is contingent, like so much of the rest, on further agreement.

It’s about what I expected, and I still find it troubling. It also still seems to me to be a way to get oil prices down in order to help the economy and the midterms. It seems to me to signal weakness, and since it depends on Trump’s now-uncertain readiness to go back to war if things don’t work out, that signal seems like an invitation to Iran to declare it has made the US capitulate. And in this case I think Iran would be correct.

I’ve written a great deal about Iran, both in the past and recently, and I’ve always seen it as an intractable problem. The Iranian government will stop at nothing – literally nothing – to stay in power. Our resolve does not include all-out war or boots on the ground. Modern technology and targeted bombings can only do so much.

ADDENDUM:
Professor Jacobson at LI says it more bluntly than I, but I’m in agreement with him:

It’s an embarrassment and sell out of our national interests. And that’s the nicest thing I can say about it. No reason to sugarcoat it. We went from sweeping military success to capitulating because Iran threatened to destroy the world economy and drive energy prices higher.

What a shame.

One of the many reservations I had about Trump at first, and have retained right along, is Trump’s mercurial nature and his loose-cannon tendencies. This can go either way; he’s unpredictable. Sometimes he’s rock-solid and sometimes he says or does things that make a person cringe. He is never completely reliable. The explanation for what is happening now with this deal – and the cause of my own uneasiness since the negotiations and ceasefire phase began – is not clear. But I agree that it has to do with economics. I would add, however, that Trump’s narcissistic desire to make a deal is probably some part of it. I’ve expressed that fear before: that the idea of himself as dealmaker extraordinaire would cause him to make a bad one. This seems to be that bad one, unless there’s a whole lot that I’m missing.

Another thing that has made me more and more uneasy as time has gone on is that Vance has become more visible as spokesperson compared to Rubio. This did not, and does not, bode well.

At the moment, this appears to rank up there with Biden’s retreat from Afghanistan – or worse. I hope I’m overreacting.

The post Trump on the Iran Deal [scroll down for important UPDATE] appeared first on The New Neo.

It’s a nice wishlist, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

And then what? If a Democrat gets elected president, will everything go out the window? Isn’t that what the Iranian regime – which plays the long game – is counting on? How would the Trump administration be able to guarantee a deal would last long enough to matter? I don’t think they’re unaware of the problem. But I hope they’re very creative about the solution.

Then again, the deal may fall through again, and the war resume.

Today Trump says it will happen tomorrow:

pic.twitter.com/dhYnqzxxlK

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 13, 2026

Is Trump a chump or a wily fox? Lucy, football? Obama-deal lite? Something that will last and actually mean something?

I have a very bad feeling in the pit of my stomach about this. I don’t think the current leaders of Iran can be trusted, and it feels as though this gives them a reprieve and that Trump has been played. Then again, I don’t know. I really, really, really don’t know, and people who say they do are wrong – unless they are on the inside, and maybe not even then.

I think it will be a while before this plays out and we can even being to tell what it means, but I am filled with trepidation at the moment.

The post Today’s Iran news appeared first on The New Neo.

But here goes:

We reported earlier how President Donald Trump lit up the Iranian state media for leaks that they were claiming about the deal that is about to be finalized.

As we noted, the regime’s foreign ministry spokesperson confirmed the deal was close to being finalized.

Now, in what has to be a first, the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, scolded the Iranian media for what they had reported about the deal, indicating they were getting things wrong. Then, Trump quoted Araghchi, probably another first.

Get it?

This is the rumored deal:

1. Nuclear material will be destroyed and removed

2. Nuclear program will be dismantled

3. None of their money released until they perform

4. Strait of Hormuz will be open

5. No Iran funding of terrorist groups

I’d like to add, “stop killing your own people.” Or even better, “step down” and have free and fair elections. I know, that’s not happening. But will those five points happen? How will all of it be enforced? It’s a nice wishlist, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

And then what? If a Democrat gets elected president, will everything go out the window? Isn’t that what the Iranian regime – which plays the long game – is counting on? How would the Trump administration be able to guarantee a deal would last long enough to matter? I don’t think they’re unaware of the problem. But I hope they’re very creative about the solution.

Then again, the deal may fall through again, and the war resume.

The post Iran. Deal. Again. appeared first on The New Neo.

It happens nearly every time. I’ll be reading a short story, let’s say, enjoying myself, lost in the experience—when suddenly, there it is: the gratuitous and mean-spirited and out-of-context slap at Bush, or at those who support him. It’s not as though the story is even tangentially about politics, either; it can be about anything at all, it doesn’t really matter.

The Bush-dissing will be thrown in when you least expect it, just to let the reader know—well, to let the reader know what, exactly? To let the reader know that the author is hip, kindly, intelligent, moral—oh, just about everything a person ought to be. And that the reader must of course be a member of the club, too—not one of those Others, the warmongers, the selfish and stupid and demonized people who happen to have voted for Bush.

Back when I was one of the gang, too, back when I was in with the in crowd (“if it’s square, we ain’t there”), did I notice when authors dragged in their political credentials from left field? Or perhaps it wasn’t quite as commonplace back then for them to do so?

At any rate, now it seems positively obligatory. I’m reading along, sunk deep within the story, bonding with the characters—and then, suddenly, it’s as though the author has reached a hand out of the pages of the magazine (OK, I’ll confess, sometimes it’s the New Yorker—yes, I still read it for the fiction, just as some people claim they read Playboy for the interviews) and slapped me across the face.

Authors, do you really want to do this? Because, with a single sentence, you’ve managed to alienate and offend (not to mention insult) up to half your audience.

Well, it’s only gotten worse since then. Sometimes it works out for the artist; after all, one-half of the population of the US is still a lot of people. Plus, if the person is offering something of value – is a good singer or actor or writer – people on the opposite side of the political divide may decide to still buy their product rather than boycott them. But what of someone like Jimmy Kimball? Unfunny, unentertaining; all he’s got is dissing Trump and even the way he does that isn’t the least bit clever. Plus, he seems to consider himself some sort of hero.

Therefore, should anyone be surprised at his perhaps-pending cancellation? Of course not. But Jimmy seems to think he’s being persecuted, poor thing:

The “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” host opened up in a new interview with Vulture about the future of the genre following the cancellation of Stephen Colbert‘s “Late Show” on CBS and his own run-ins with Trump, including his suspension following comments made about the death of Charlie Kirk.

“I feel a little bit defeated about it,” Kimmel told Vulture after Colbert’s final episode aired on May 21. “In a lot of ways, I feel like I’m looking at my own future.”

Kimmel went on to say he was assured by the network that his show is still profitable, and yet they only renewed him for a year. Plus:

Asked if he has thought about retirement, Kimmel said he’s still unsure when his time will come. “It’s important to me to be responsible,” he said. “I know I could go out in a blaze of glory and get a lot of applause for it, but it would be a very selfish thing to do.”

That is, if he isn’t ousted first. Trump has repeatedly called for Kimmel to be fired, most recently when he made a joke about Melania Trump having a “glow like an expectant widow.” In that case and that of Kirk, Kimmel said he “had the truth on my side as a defense. What if I actually do do something wrong? I mean, that’s inevitable.”

Of the president, Kimmel said: “I don’t love him. I don’t hate him, either. I feel sorry for him. He obviously didn’t get hugged a lot.”

Sure thing, Jimmy; you don’t hate Trump at all. And that remark about not being hugged is about the typical level of Kimmel’s wit.

Makes one yearn – positively yearn – for the days of Johnny Carson, who must have had his political preferences but kept them to himself while being genuinely entertaining. But that was a long long time ago.

The post JImmy Kimmel – the art of offending at least half of your potential audience appeared first on The New Neo.

Take your pick.of metaphors – either way, how the person sees it at the moment is more a reflection of that person’s attitude towards Trump, war, and Iran itself than any reality. Do you think Trump’s a bumbling fool? Then you probably think it’s a foolish and perhaps even evil war. Do you think Trump’s a wily old bastard with many tricks up his sleeve? Then you probably think the war has achieved a great deal towards defanging an active terrorist state bent on the destruction of the West, and you are willing to trust that Trump has no intention of undermining those gains and every intention of extending them, as well as the ability to do so.

If you’re a pacifist or isolationist and thought Trump was one too, you’re probably angry and feel betrayed. And of course, if you think Iran’s a great place and the leaders are heroes who had no evil intent and need nuclear weapons, you’re on their side.

But sooner or later, the inkblot turns into a recognizable picture. Sooner or later, the box is opened and you either observe a live cat or a dead cat. The basic question is: at what point will that happen? Some think it should have happened already. Others are willing to wait.

One of those willing to wait is Roger Kimball, who writes:

Trump held Iran’s head underwater for six weeks. He pulled it up and let it sputter while he offered the mullahs an off-ramp. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio, responding to the press, is right. “The idea that somehow this President, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd!”

Indeed. Trump is waiting impatiently while the Iranians prance and posture. The IRGC tried laying some mines in the Strait of Hormuz and: pow! The US took out the boats involved and destroyed a surface-to-air missile battery in Bandar Abbas that was targeting US warplanes. “These were defensive strikes,” a US spokesman said. “They do not indicate the ceasefire is over.”

What they do indicate is that Trump is serious about his terms.

Kimball also believes that the Iranian regime “may shatter” once “a few cracks appear.” I think “may” is doing a lot of work there. Of course it “may” shatter, but IMHO that will take more than “a few cracks.” A lot more.

Trump isn’t making a deal contingent on the regime shattering; he’s making it contingent on their cooperating on his key points. But is that even possible, and would capitulation be meaningful if they can’t be trusted? I think the answer is “no.” I think this particular regime will never yield on those points and even if they do is not to be trusted. And I think Trump, Rubio, and the rest of the American negotiators know that. That’s why the endgame is a conundrum.

NOTE: Here’s a piece about the Rorschach test. And here’s one about Schrödinger’s cat.

The post The war in Iran is a Rorschach test appeared first on The New Neo.

Trump is the only major American politician of the last forty years who was professionally formed in the long-form unstructured format before he ever entered politics. That is the entire answer. Everything else is downstream of that fact.

The standard explanations (charismatic, natural performer, good instincts) are descriptions of the result rather than explanations of the cause.

Well, sort of. He’s actually a natural at it, and then he also has honed his skills over time. It’s not either/or. But yes, he’s got more experience in the long-form interview, both hostile and friendly, than almost anyone on earth. That’s not an accident. He’s sought celebrity, and been comfortable with it, for pretty much his whole life.

I agree with a great deal of the article – for example, this:

Widely misunderstood. Trump does not actually have no filter. He has a very specific filter, calibrated over decades, that allows him to say things that sound spontaneous and unfiltered while actually being controlled performance. He says transgressive things on purpose, knowing they will land. He floats trial balloons, watches the reaction, and either commits to the position or walks it back depending on the response. The persona of being unfiltered is itself a filter.

Also this:

The credentialed class is the class of people who have internalized the institutional consequences of saying the wrong thing, and who have organized their public speech to avoid those consequences. Trump did not come up through any of those institutions. He came up in New York real estate and tabloid culture, both of which are environments where shame is a vulnerability rather than a discipline, and where the operators who succeed are the ones who have learned to act without it. He says things the credentialed class would be unable to say, not because the things are necessarily wrong, but because the credentialed class has been trained to feel an autonomic flinch before the words leave the mouth. Trump does not have the flinch.

The absence of the flinch is read by the audience as authenticity, and is read by the opposing class as proof of monstrousness.

Yes indeed. But the author follows it with this:

Both readings miss the structural fact: the flinch is a learned behavior of a specific institutional formation, and Trump did not undergo that formation.

Here’s where I have the same objection I had at the beginning: it’s not just a learned behavior, it’s in sync with Trump’s personality, although it’s also a behavior that’s been honed and refined through practice.

It occurs to me that Spencer Pratt has had some of this type of practice. Not as much as Trump but more than most, having been on reality TV a great deal. And he also didn’t come up through the normal political paths, so he didn’t learn the pussy-footing obfuscation and the art of talking while saying nothing. Here’s an example of Pratt’s skills:

The threaded NBC clip exemplifies exactly what Pratt said here about being honed for debate by constant battle with hostile media hacks —

Unlike his Democrat opponents:

“Every interview I do it's opposition. When Bass or Raman talk to the media, they can just lie." https://t.co/gcjgGjx08Z pic.twitter.com/WFCEavoJlb

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) May 29, 2026

Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether people without X can access these tweets and videos. If you can’t see the second one, this might help:

Spencer Pratt schools NBC reporter who wants to know if he’s running for LA Mayor just to promote his “brand."

Reporter: “Man, your brand is hotter than ever!"

Pratt initially talks about getting in the race after losing everything in the fires.

But then he gets to the… pic.twitter.com/SrDMy7zyR0

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) May 29, 2026

It’s LA, and I doubt Pratt can win. But it would be astounding if he did.

The post Trump as long-form master appeared first on The New Neo.

Trump had better know what he is doing. Maybe he’s got it worked out that Iran collapses economically real soon. Still, it seems he is cutting it pretty close. He may say he doesn’t care about the midterms, but a lot of Americans care more about the economy than Iran.

Indeed they do, although a lot of people care about both. But gas prices are certainly more up close and personal.

What did Trump actually say, in context? This:

President Donald Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday that he isn’t concerned about making a deal soon with Iran, adding that he doesn’t “care about the midterms” in what he said he thinks is the regime’s calculation that he has to negotiate a deal before what are expected to be highly-competitive elections in November.

“They thought they were going to out-wait me, you know. ‘We’ll out-wait him. He’s got the midterms.’ I don’t care about the midterms. Look what happened last night, that was a prelude to the midterms. People understand it,” Trump said, likely referencing his endorsed candidate, Ken Paxton, winning the Senate Republican runoff in Texas. …

“Mr. President, you’ve said that you’re in no rush to make a deal, but with gas prices that are still high across the country, people are paying more for travel. Does that give you more urgency to make a deal? Why doesn’t it?” ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott asked Trump during the Cabinet meeting.

“Well, I’ll tell you, the primary urgency, I’ve said this, it wasn’t covered properly, but the primary urgency is that we can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump responded.

It’s very clearly a message to Iran that they shouldn’t believe he’s under pressure to cave because of concerns about the midterms. The press and the Trump opposition are eager to convey the message as one that says “he doesn’t care about you, he doesn’t care that you have to pay more for gas, he simply doesn’t care.” But clearly he cares; he just prioritizing the message to the Iranian leadership that they shouldn’t believe he will cave because of the midterms. Note the eagerness of questioner Rachel Scott of ABC (although she’s harely alone) to indicate that he must cave.

Trump also said this:

…[W]e’re not talking about any easing of sanctions or giving money. No sanctions, no money, no nothing,” Trump said. “We have control of money that they claim is theirs. We’ll keep control of that money. And when they behave properly and when they do what’s right, we’ll let them have their money. But right now, we’re not doing that … One thing is not contingent on the other.” …

On the status of negotiations, Trump said on Wednesday he’s “not satisfied” and that Iran is “negotiating on fumes.”

“We’re not satisfied with it, but we will be. We will be. Either that or we’ll have to just finish the job,” Trump said.

The question I would like to see answered is: so why continue to negotiate? Haven’t you given this enough time? I don’t know the true answer, but I listed my guesses in this recent post.

The post Did Trump say he doesn’t care about the midterms? appeared first on The New Neo.

According to [Byron] York, the probe appears to zero in on the very origins of Carroll’s case – a story that traces back to a swanky Manhattan ‘Resistance party’ where anti-Trump operatives, deep-pocketed donors, and eager lawyers cooked up the defamation lawsuit that later ballooned into a full-blown battery claim under New York’s specially tailored Adult Survivors Act.

Carroll’s story of rape never passed the smell test, for a host of reasons I and many others have written about before. You can read York’s own effort from 2023 here. In summary: her accusations against Trump were incredibly weak and both politically and financially motivated, in addition to being a reflection of Carroll’s quest for notoriety.

But her accusations aren’t the issue now except tangentially. The issue is her funding:

On the reported criminal investigation of E. Jean Carroll — this is apparently what it is about. From April 2023, "Carroll v. Trump: The rape case that started at a Resistance party." https://t.co/yszo2259QM pic.twitter.com/XCdEBgcliT

— Byron York (@ByronYork) May 28, 2026

If you don’t have access to X:

There’s also this, which downplays the perjury aspect and focuses on other irregularities and possible charges:

The probe is focused on a trust founded by billionaire Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, whose nonprofit helped pay some of Carroll’s legal costs, two sources said. Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, is an outspoken critic of Trump.

The crimes under investigation are possible money laundering, obstruction, and conspiracy, one of the sources said. Investigators are also looking into a possible perjury charge against Carroll related to her testimony in the lawsuits, the source said, but it’s not the main focus of the probe.

Will a prosecution come from this? I doubt it, but it’s possible.

The post E. Jean Carroll is being investigated by the DOJ appeared first on The New Neo.

In reality, I don’t think it’s either. Trump is as much a reflection and result of opinions on the right as he is a shaper of those opinions. For example, I’ve been seeing significant complaints about Cornyn for quite a while online, Trump tapped into that and also probably escalated it, but it already existed.

Ken Paxton's victory in Texas has, I think, interesting implications for the national political scene.

Coming on top of a string of similar events, this is very bad news for anybody who wants to think MAGA is declining in influence or Trump is a spent force.

I'm not MAGA – I'm…

— Eric S. Raymond (@esrtweet) May 27, 2026

Longer excerpt from the tweet:

Coming on top of a string of similar events, [Paxton’s win] is very bad news for anybody who wants to think MAGA is declining in influence or Trump is a spent force. …

There have been a lot of very determined attempts to fragment the MAGA base and attempt to drive a wedge between them and the Trumpster. I see this on X and other social media – lots of indignant blithering about Israel and the Iran war that seems very light on substance and very heavy on attempting to fracture the Republican coalition.

I don’t think it’s working. [Last night] is evidence that Trump’s endorsement matters, and the base is not kindly disposed towards any Republican pol who’s perceived as not being on his team.

Again, I think the emphasis is wrong there. Yes, there are people who don’t like GOP office-holders who are disloyal to Trump himself, and who consider Team Trump the important thing. But I think the majority of voters support Trump because of what he has done and what he plans to do – that is, his policies – rather than thinking his policies are good because they’re his. Of course,Trump’s personality isn’t separate from his actions, but it’s the latter that most MAGA people emphasize and if he started doing things that were perceived as out of line with those policies he’d be losing their support.

And yes, there are people who want to take over the MAGA movement for various nefarious reasons, including Israel-hatred and Jew-hatred. But there are others who are turning on Trump merely because they are isolationists who perceived him as promising no more wars forever, not just “no forever wars.” But I think that most people on the right understood Trump to be a Jacksonian rather than an isolationist, and see the Iran war as a Jacksonian conflict that is not only necessary but long overdue. In line with that, though, if he ends the Iran war with a bad deal, one perceived as giving away too much to Iran, many of those who have stuck with him so far may become at least somewhat disillusioned.

Also – contrary to the scare propaganda of the left – Trump isn’t going to be running for a third term. If his health holds up, which I sincerely hope it does, he’ll be in office for a little over two and a half more years. Trump’s 80th birthday is only a couple of weeks away, and if all goes well he’ll be 82 and a half on leaving the presidency. At that point, Trump will have a successor or successors. But Trump is sui generis, and there won’t be anyone quite like him again, for good or ill.

The post The Trumpian primaries and Trump’s influence appeared first on The New Neo.

About 1 in 4 Americans think the April shooting at the White House correspondents’ dinner was staged according to a new survey.

Roughly 1 in 3 Democratic respondents said they believed the event was staged, compared with about 1 in 8 Republicans. …

Perhaps the most striking finding was that 42% of Democrats said they believed the Butler shooting was staged.

Among independents, that figure fell to 21%, while just 7% of Republicans said the same.

My explanation? If you believe that there is no objective truth, you are free to choose your truth – and the internet will assist you in doing so. There are also many people for whom most of life is lived online, watching a screen and coming to think of people as actors on that screen. The idea that these attempts were fake is one that’s spread online, and for people who believe the worst of Trump it’s a “truth” they can get behind. The fact that other people were wounded and one person killed at Butler? Fake. The photos of the assassin on the roof? Fake.

As just one example of the folks spreading this particular set of ideas, I bring you the odd couple, Candace Owens and Hunter Biden. Yes, you heard that right (the clip is less than a minute long):

Or a conspiracy. The JFK conspiracy theories have spawned countless others. But to the best of my knowledge, it never became a widespread idea that he hadn’t died and that the killing was fake; he was obviously dead in a way that would have been difficult for even the most devoted conspiracy theorist to deny. As far as I know, though, the other attempted presidential assassinations between then and now – for example, the shooting of Reagan, or the attempt on Ford’s life – never engendered any sort of widespread notion that they weren’t real.

Perhaps that sort of idea began with 9/11 Truthers. There was a not insignificant number of people who believed the WTC and Pentagon attacks were, if not exactly fake, then a performative plot by the US government:

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were the result of controlled demolitions rather than structural failure due to impact and fire. Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government, or that hijacked planes were remotely controlled …

Extraordinary. And there are also the people who think the moon landings were faked.

The other day I heard two jokes about conspiracy theorists and the tenacious quality of their beliefs. Here’s the first:

“Three conspiracy theorists walk into a bar. You can’t tell me that’s just a coincidence.”

And the second:

“A JFK assassination conspiracy theorist dies and goes to heaven. At the Pearly Gates, God welcomes him and says, ‘To reward your lifelong search for the truth, I will answer one question for you.’

“The man doesn’t hesitate. ‘Who really killed John F. Kennedy?’ he asks.

“God smiles and says, ‘Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone shooting from the Texas School Book Depository with a Manlicher-Carcano rifle. There was no second shooter and no conspiracy.’

“The man mutters, ‘Shit. This goes much higher up than I thought.'”

The post “Butler was staged” appeared first on The New Neo.