Three woke-right anti-Trump influencers disappeared on the same weekend of Trump assassination attempt, at short notice. Coincidence?
(media.greatawakening.win)
🏳️ FALSE FLAG 👮
Comments (47)
sorted by:
Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens and Ian Carroll not only all disappeared, but they all disappeared to the same place—Italy—all flying in at the same time on the same day, along with the pope and a former TPUSA employee that was featured on Candace's show.
Candace Owens & Other Conservatives FLEE The United States to Italy
This is extremely unusual.
There is another theory: these guys were paid by SPLC and since that blew up, they needed to find other sources of income.
Havent watched that video but saw a few videos claiming Nick showed up in Rome. Is it confirmed?
I think the source was Laura Loomer, she claimed pictures of him in Italy surfaced online, but if so I haven't seen them.
Lara digs up some really good stuff. And she also makes up some crap stuff. I will only believe what she says if there is sauce, and with this one the jury is still out. Personal bet is that Candace is gone to Britain, dunno where Nick went
Maybe they knew that something was going to happen tonight.
That and they needed to get their next talking points/assignment in person to have private and secure comms?
Some folks are thinking these folks were being paid by the SPLC and that's why they stopped, because the SPLC was just indicted and are under a microscope, not because of the shooting. Just throwing it out there.
Nothing to see here, right?
Dont ask questions. They are busy redpilling people.
Nick's new playmate Clavicular was arrested recently, maybe he's gone to show him his solid arity.
"solid arity" LOL
Remember when our President said Candace Owens was a low IQ loser, and that Brigitte Macron was FAR more beautiful than she was? https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116376634773749603
Ouch, that was a zinger!
u/#topkek
First off I wouldnt lump Fuentes in with Ian and Candace. Theyre a different breed. I don’t understand why you are so against/suspicious of investigative journalism?
We need to accept that not everything is as it seems. You can still support Trump and believe everything’s going to plan, and yet disagree with specific topics or decisions. This forum has always been first to call out Trump when we didn’t agree with everything he said, why would that stop now?
The Epstein files are a glimpse at the center of the global cabal control network, and Charlie Kirk was betrayed. That’s the most important story and I’m not willing to drop it.
When it comes to Candace and Ian, what they do is not investigative journalism. I have pointed out blatant disinformation from Candace so many times on this board regarding everything from "Charlie was turning against Israel" to "Erika saying Charlie saying Shalom Shabbot is obviously a lie" to "Charlie told the pastor that he was afraid for his life" to "Charlie was against Trump attacking Iran" to "The bullet did not come from a 30-06" to "Tyler Robinson never even stepped in to the Utah university" to "Erika was in a secret base day before the assassination" to "FBI is not sharing all the information related to the investigation" and on and on.
I have provided sauce for every single proving every single one of these is a disinformation and when I confront Candies with this info they just ghost me, or they call me a Zionist shill or they. quit the site. There is no truth seeking here.
Not a single aspect of the "questioning" (which is not really asking question btw, because while saying she is asking questions, she always tells you what you should believe) held up to even the mildest scrutiny that I did spending 5-10 mins each.
This is not investigative journalism
This is very sophisticated disinformation whose goal is not about solving Charlie Kirk's murder, but to obstruct and bring down Trump's strategic moves that are absolutely essential to free us from the Cabal (City of London)
DUDE, who told you to drop anything? Why are you so unwilling to consider all angles of everything? Why are you unwilling to look at the evidence that proves people like Candace are charlatans? Why does your ability to think of an important story has to do with whether Candace is good or bad?
And no, Trump did not kill Charlie. Israel did not kill Charlie. Charlie was targeted by Arctic Frost and refused to co-operate. Trump did not attack Iran because of Israel. Iran is one of the biggest assets of the Cabal and has to be dismantled before we can have freedom.
Happy to debate this as long as you want.
I can’t debate you on the he-said/she-said stuff, if you don’t listen to the journalists who report these things then it doesn’t matter what I say. No one said Trump killed Charlie directly..
But let’s focus on the bullet. How could you possibly think a 30-06 did that damage to Charlie’s neck?
https://youtu.be/IKK4ATVHk8Q?si=iPWksotONUNic3bc
I’ve personally fired these weapons and seen the damage. This is just an example.
Its not he said/she said. Its "she said / I disproved with sauce" - no brainer for a real truth seeker really.
So you are saying I should trust these people even when the things they say are provably false
Of course that would be a stupid assertion to make since Trump was not in the crowd that day pulling the trigger. But even with that caveat it is so easy to prove you wrong with Sauce
See, this is the whole point of Candace. She thinks she is smart and tries not to "say" things but put thoughts in people's mind without evidence like a mind virus, that contaminates everything they think about after that. But she is not that smart and she lets loose her real intentions eventually, always.
Oh, and this is exactly the same way people on the left get brainwashed by their favourite "investigative journalists", except our side are supposedly smarter.
Yes lets focus on the bullet. Personally firing a weapon does not make you an expert. You gotta look at the evidence. The recently unsealed documents show that even the defense does not argue that a 30-06 was used for the assassination. And no, FBI does not release all their evidence and before the trial and no, not even if Candace wants to do "her own investigation"
So you can focus on the bullet at the trial when all the evidence is presented and Tyler Robinson has a chance to demolish the evidence if he can. And if you think the judge was unfair and did not preside over a fair trial (which is very possible) then you can bring it up and we can discuss it. Until then, we simply dont have enough to focus on the bullet
How can you disprove a text message source, with another source? The gun they’re saying Tyler shot was definitively a 30-06 so if you’re saying the evidence is yet to be released then I guess we just have to wait and see and there’s nothing to even talk about. Nevermind the fact that nothing makes sense and the people who ask questions are dismissed with “sauce” that doesn’t actually answer any questions.
Okay, here's some sauce to disprove your first claim:
https://youtu.be/fQ9VOlaBBeo?t=1688 (Charlie Questions Oct 7 Narrative)
https://youtu.be/MRPMUXy73LU?t=77 (Charlie talks about influence in politics) - Exact quote from video "Jewish donors - they have a lot of explaining to do"
The Cabaal could not let Charlie Kirk continue to live. He was far more mainstream (and intelligent IMO) than Fuentes and he was causing far too many people to start noticing.
OTOH, I 100% agree that Trump was not behind Kirk's assassination and Candance is a definite shill. When you're trying to make it too big to rig, you don't shoot one of your rising stars who is netting you millions of votes from young, persuadable voters.
Dude I am SO glad you posted this.
First point, note the date of this: Oct 13th 2023 - 2 years before he was killed.
Hang on, hang on, now check this point in the same video: https://www.youtube.com/live/fQ9VOlaBBeo?si=BrJL8XV_gD7TYW8x&t=1814 @30:14
He explains what he meant by the "Standdown order"
I am glad you linked this too. Guess what? This was 2 years before his death as well. And guess what else? He had Jewish donors still donating millions after that. Now ... thats funny wouldn't you say, if all Jews were one clump of clay and you "call one out" and they all turn on you?
Let me give you another example of Charlie calling out the Jews, I mean this one should be prescribed reading/listening fo all Anons. He breaks down the evil Jews and normal Jews in under 10 seconds like no one can.
And guess what, they still kept funding him millions.
So here are a few things to ponder about:
Answer is already known - because the Jewish billionaires started pulling back funding.
Was it because he was already "getting redpilled on Jews" ? No, because Charlie has always been a redpill machine when it comes to Jews. he knew them inside out, the good, the bad and the ugly.
Before I tell you why the billionaires pulled out I will ask you: Is it a coincidence that he was killed the very next day he was venting his frustrations about these Jewish billionaires in a private chat ?
C'mon, even you wouldnt think Netanyahu was snooping into his text message and decided to set up a hit job the very next day.
I will tell you why the billionaires were pulling back, and you will see it was not a coincidence.
Billionaires were pulling back because of ...... Tucker f'kin Carlson .... supposed friend of Charlie, who had a huge platform of his own, but decided to go on an important TPUSA and then for the first time go on a complete rant claiming all Jews were evil.
Tucker knew Charlie would not deplatform him.
Tucker also knew the billionaire donors would not like their platform being used to be called evil.
Tucker knew this would put a deep divide between Charlie and his funders.
And someone knew that he was ranting on Israel the day before the hit.
And we also know Andrew (who was on the chat) shared the exact screenshot in the coming days with Joe Kent.
And we also know Joe Kent said that screenshot was being used to consider "foreign forces behind Charlie's death"
And we also know Arctic Frost targeted Charlie Kirk.
C'mon, you dont need to be a Candace Owen to put this much together to know exactly who killed Charlie Kirk
Investigative journalism? If only it was what they actually did. You can not remain that naive this late in the game. People love their ears tickled.
I will admit there’s a degree of entertainment that the YouTubers engage in, but that’s all news media. You can’t fault them for earning money to do what they’re doing.
Bringing facts and different threads together is exactly what an investigative journalist does.
The platonic ideal of investigative journalism lol! If you doubt what they say you are against the very idea of it. Good thinking there.
Sigh. I cannot figure this board out to save my life. While I know little about NF, I do know that Ian and Candace have boldly called out anyone and any group they discover is pulling strings in our government: Mossad, Macrons, Bibi, Gates, Soros, Loomer, etc.
These podcasters do not like the war with Iran. There's a real possibility that Charlie Kirk was taken out because of his stance that we should not go to war with Iran and his desire to depart from supporting Israel. Those with influence like Charlie have been warned via Charlie's assassination.
GAW used to listen to those who are America First and who call out Israel. I'm willing to see how this plays out before turning on those who are speaking dangerous truths.
Here's what our President thinks about your pal Candace Owens:
"I know why Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones have all been fighting me for years, especially by the fact that they think it is wonderful for Iran, the Number One State Sponsor of Terror, to have a Nuclear Weapon — Because they have one thing in common, Low IQs. They’re stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too! Look at their past, look at their record. They don’t have what it takes, and they never did! They’ve all been thrown off Television, lost their Shows, and aren’t even invited on TV because nobody cares about them, they’re NUT JOBS, TROUBLEMAKERS, and will say anything necessary for some “free” and cheap publicity. Now they think they get some “clicks” because they have Third Rate Podcasts, but nobody’s talking about them, and their views are the opposite of MAGA — Or I wouldn’t have won the Presidential Election in a LANDSLIDE. MAGA agrees with me, and just gave CNN a 100% Approval Rating of “TRUMP,” not Hand Flailing Fools like Tucker Carlson, who couldn’t even finish College, he was a broken man when he got fired from Fox, and he’s never been the same — Perhaps he should see a good psychiatrist! Or Megyn Kelly, who nastily asked me the now famous, “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” question, or “Crazy” Candace Owens, who accuses the Highly Respected First Lady of France of being a man, when she is not, and will hopefully win lots of money in the ongoing lawsuit. Actually, to me, the First Lady of France is a far more beautiful woman than Candace, in fact, it’s not even close! Or Bankrupt Alex Jones, who says some of the dumbest things, and lost his entire fortune, as he should have, for his horrendous attack on the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, ridiculously claiming it was a hoax. These so-called “pundits” are LOSERS, and they always will be! Now Fake News CNN, The Failing New York Times, and all of the other Radical Left “News” Organizations, are “hailing” them, and giving them “positive” press for the first time in their lives. They’re not “MAGA,” they’re losers, just trying to latch on to MAGA. As President, I could get them on my side anytime I want to, but when they call, I don’t return their calls because I’m too busy on World and Country Affairs and, after a few times, they go “nasty,” just like Marjorie “Traitor” Brown, but I no longer care about that stuff, I only care about doing right for our Country. MAGA is about WINNING and STRENGTH in not allowing Iran to have Nuclear Weapons. MAGA is about MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and these people have no idea how to do that, BUT I DO, because THE UNITED STATES IS NOW THE “HOTTEST” COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD! President DONALD J. TRUMP" 4/9/26, 5:58 PM https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116376634773749603 BE CAREFUL WHO YOU FOLLOW!
I'm acutely aware of how DJT (who I respect) lumped these four together...almost like he was trying to build them up as a group with their commonalities (their audiences can be vastly different, but they are bonding now!). Calling them out repeatedly also brought more awareness to what they're saying regarding America first - the Streisand effect, if you will.
Tucker, Megyn, Candace, and Alex don't care that they aren't invited on TV because it's irrelevant to them and their audience. The generations that follow these podcasters are the younger generations which care nothing about broadcast news; it's anathema to them. Networks are not a source of information for their viewers.
And DJTs hypocrisy in this post seems to have been missed by many as he claims CNNs 100% approval rating just before calling out the "Fake News CNN" in the same post. This is an obvious dog whistle that most of GAW failed to hear. DJT has told us in this post that the networks are sh!t and the podcasters have the floor.
What do woke left and woke right have in common? A lot, including using words like "dog whistle". Something to think about.
Oh and the CNN 100% rating is obviously fake. No one ever has 100% rating. They pushed that narrative hoping it would lull Trump into complacency for midterms, and thats why he keeps saying it all the time. Trolling and lulling at the same time, like only he can do, and Anons used to be able to enjoy these stuff in the past until their IDS took over and drove them to get brainwashed by disinformation narratives.
I agree with you that the CNN rating is fake, which is exactly why Trump claiming the poll as a win in the same post he calls them Fake News CNN is a signal to those who are listening that the "third rate podcasters" who are, in reality, highly ranked podcasters worthy of attention.
The bigger story here is that Trump needs the support of Israel (who is well-loved by much of the population of Iran) while he has us at war with Iran. These podcasters are being consistent with their opinion on wars. I completely respect that stance. Trump needs enough support for this war, so he's differentiating himself from the podcasters BY CLAIMING THEY CAN'T GET INTERVIEWS ON THE FAKE NEWS THAT HE HATES.
Please tell me I'm not the only one here who gets this.
u/#q916
I am curious, have you been able to find out what Candace's stance on war has been? I havent been able to find anytime she talked about wars before the Iran strikes.
But what I find concerning is not the stance of wars as such (whether you want to specifically focus on "forever wars" or "starting new wars vs Iran war being 47 years old and dormant by design") but the fact that whatever their stance is leads them to praise Islamists, praise Sharia laws, call for a NWO lead by China and Russia etc.
Its hard to evaluate an idea by itself (like equality, diversity, conservation etc) until you see where there ideas lead you
There's factions here, those following these new threads of truth and those too psyoped by Milint/Mossad to accept it.
Censorship is back, no dissent tolerated
But they dont call out the Vatican. And Candace has never called out Rothschilds.
Wonder why!
And why did she block Loomer when she posted the gay picture of Candace's husband and Milo? I thought Candace loves asking questions!
This is false. Charlie was very articulate about it. He never said we shouldnt go to war with Iran. He always maintained the nukes should be neutralized, but we shouldnt go there for a regime change goal but most importantly, stated that "Trump has the best information and he will completely support Trump with any of his actions in Iran since he has earned his trust"
Do you know the context of that internal chat message about stopping causes supporting Israel was about? It had to do with billionaire jews pulling back funding. It had nothing to do with his own stance about Israel.
And do you know why the billionaires were pulling the funding? Go dig it, its easy to find and it gives you the answer you want and demolishes the entire "Israel killed Charlie" narrative.
Bubbles, really? "He never said we shouldnt go to war with Iran."
Charlie Kirk Show, May 1, 2025
“I just don't think we should go to war with Iran… Military strikes against Iran would be war against Iran, period.” He criticized neoconservatives like Mike Waltz and Alex Wong, calling their foreign policy views “a neoconservative view” tied to past failed wars.
X, April 2025
“A new Middle East war would be a catastrophic mistake… Iran is larger than Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan combined. A war would not be easy and could easily become a calamity.” This post resurfaced widely after U.S. strikes in early 2026.
Comments to Lindsey Graham, June 2025
“Okay, that sounds good, but that's pathologically insane… Regime change is war… It's very messy, creates a quagmire. And then there is civil war.” He emphasized Iran’s size and complexity, calling it “a beast of a country.”
Comment to Joe Kent, June 2025
“Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran,” a moment Kent described as loud and urgent.
Good reminder never to use the words "never" and "always", lol. Yes, I stand corrected. In his May 1st podcast, incidentally titled " Why America Must Not Bomb Iran", not only does he say "I just don't think we should go to war with Iran", he even says:
"what if we just do limited airstrikes? You've got to also just take a step back. Wait a second. Why are we trusting our intel agencies so quickly? We've only been in charge for 101 or 102 days. We're all of a sudden going to trust the Biden holdover intel agencies that are telling us Iran is close to a nuclear weapon after they have lied to us at every single corner in every turn"
"Oh, yeah, we're just going to do some strikes in Libya. Oh, really? Libya has been a catastrophe."
"By the way, Qaddafi is a really interesting example as to why Iran wants nuclear weapons. Remember, Qaddafi voluntarily denuclearized."
So you are absolutely right. He was very categorical about no war with Iran, not even limited airstrikes, not even to take out the nuclear weapons (which he showed great skepticism in the first place)
Given his viewpoint in May, I can believe he said that and he probably even told Trump directly to not strike Iran since he was reported to have met Trump in mid June.
So, I can see why people would be so tempted to accept the narrative "Charlie did not want Trump to attack Iran, so he was killed and Trump betrayed Charlie" because everything we are seeing here points to that, right?
Keeping everything above in mind, lets look at the Charlie Kirk Show, June 18, 2025:
"Is the U.S. going to strike Iran? President Trump says he doesn't know yet."
" President Trump has been consistent for over a decade saying that Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. President Trump has said that for 10 years."
"However, if you watch carefully and closely amongst the Washington, D.C. and neoconservative, neo-imperialist class, especially in the Republican Party, they've kind of shifted gears here. They've shifted gears from Iran should not have a nuclear weapon to Iran should not have an Ayatollah"
" And then it was, well, America is going to help Israel take out the nuclear weapon. Still the same theme, but a shift, but still the same theme, one that is defensible if done correctly and prudently. I have some caution towards that intervention, but I can get it. I can get behind that if President Trump executed executes in a way that only he can."
"So now we're talking about regime change off the table."
This was 5 days before Trump actually carried out the strikes on Iran. If we stick to Charlie in May, then Trump betrayed him already with that strike, but if we look at Charlie in June - he is absolutely behind taking out nuclear sites as long as there is no regime change. This is also the reason why Trump keeps saying "I never went there for Regime change, it just happened as a side effect" and "Israel wanted other things" etc.
In May 2025, Charlie was exactly where all of us were - Iran war is a deep state dream and we should keep away from it as far as we can. Dont believe they have nukes. Lets not even do any strikes, because that would lead to a war.
My June, he had already learnt some stuff that made him change his stance completely and he was okay with the strikes, under Trump's leadership as long as it was not for what neocons wanted - regime change.
This is why this narrative that Trump betrayed Charlie Kirk by attacking Iran is so frustrating that it drives me crazy, but then it gets morphed into "Charlie was killed because he tried to stop Trump from attacking Iran".
Charlie tried to stop Trump in mid June.
Charlie was fully behind Trump in end of June.
Charlie was confident in Trump's judgements while he was very suspicious of the neocons.
Charlie was int he fog same as all of us, but when Trump showed him the glimpse of the truth, he started finding his way in the right direction, like most of us here.
This would track as accurate if it were the whole story. However, Charlie was assassinated in September and by the end of February we were at war with Iran.
“Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran,” a moment Kent described as loud and urgent.
What else did Joe Kent say? In his resignation letter dated March 17, which was 17 days after the start of Operation Epic Fury, Joe says the following:
"Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."
And further down he writes:
"Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran."
The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center who was appointed by President Trump himself in 2025 resigned because the US was duped by Israel into a war with Iran. And the cited a media campaign on his way out.
Let's examine the media, then...
TPUSAs Student Action Summit was held July 11-13, 2025. Charlie had Tucker there and told Tucker to "Go max" in his speech, knowing Tucker's views on Israel. Charlie was then being pressured to disinvite Tucker to AmFest in December, which he refused to do, leading to the loss of a big donor - “Just lost another huge Jewish donor. $2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker.” (text sent by Charlie on September 8).
Charlie was assassinated two days later. Who spoke at AmFest? Not Tucker, who speaks critically of Israel, but Ben Shapiro, Israel's biggest mouthpiece in the US.
And in case you think Charlie and Ben saw eye-to-eye on Israel check out this interview, specifically at 9:36.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Y05zhdy7Q&pp=ygUXQmVuIGNoYXJsaWUgc2VwdGVtYmVyIDnSBwkJ3woBhyohjO8%3D
This interaction happened September 9. Charlie was assassinated the following day.
But don't worry, Bibi immediately informed us that Israel wasn't involved in Charlie's death.
https://youtube.com/shorts/B0wnXRtfJpk
Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said "influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign." Getting Ben Shapiro on the stage at AmFest instead of Charlie and Tucker is a big shift, eh?
I hope this helps you see why so many of us believe Charlie was assassinated for his changing views on Israel.
Q1. If Charlie were to, lets assume, strongly come against Feb war, why would he need to be killed considering he would be one amongst many others who survived without getting killed?
Q2: Why such a long delay? Trump managed to change his mind within 3 days before the June strikes, so why kill him 5 months before the Iran war when he could have done the same.
Q3: What did killing Charlie achieve? We still have Tucker/Candace etc changing so many people's minds about Iran, so what did killing Charlie achieve?
There is lot more to the whole story, but let me present it to you purely based on observations related to Charlie, rather than pronouncements of Joe Kent, who has already lied by omission once.
I am judging this situation purely from what can be confirmed regarding Charlie's viewpoints and how it changed.
I am not accepting anything Joe says as full truth, because he already lied by omission once.
So here was a [comment](read this comment) i made recently, putting everything into a timeline and see how it computes
Okay I am curious about one thing. How do you think whoever killed Charlie find out what he was saying in a private chat with his friends? I really want to know this, but the others never try to reply when I ask this question. I actually have an answer and you would know what it is if you read the link to my comment above.
Trust me, I understand far better than what you would expect as to why you all believe this, and I don't mean that in any disrespectful way. I was pretty much where you are with respect to Israel and Jews, and I started going down this path.
So I fully understand why you all believe it.
However, in my case, I did not ignore inconsistencies nor did I hold any specific viewpoint as rigid and unchangable (both regarding Israel and regarding Iran) but rather tried to make sure the overall picture became consistent and thats when I realised I was making assumptions that were not correct.
Thats when I realised that I was suffering from IDS (Israel derangement syndrome) and its the other side of the TDS, and they both take you down the wrong path if you keep ignoring all inconsistencies. TDS was designed to control the left, IDS was designed to control the right.
In anycase, I just like to share my thinking. I don't expect to change anyone's minds. I respect your opinions are different than mine, but I do love to make sure we at least agree on the facts, like when you pointed out I was wrong about what I claimed about Charlie and that lead me dig more and ironically helped me tighten my position when I add it to the rest of the pieces.
what
Thats one of the name on the social media for these folks.
They just had no idea of what yet to post following "the event"
Papi Trumpo made a couple posts that had me scratching my head. After seeing your post they make a little more sense now.
https://truthsocial.com/@ilpresidento/116461077655899992
https://truthsocial.com/@ilpresidento/116460919494375660
Nick and Candace identify as Catholic so Italy doesn't sound like that unusual of a destination choice to me (idk about Ian)
True; same weekend though?
Isn’t Ian, too?
This speaks to Netanyahu’s ability to respond quickly to Charlie Kirk’s own cell phone communications-
Amy Eskridge claimed the real spark to her harassment came when she left a voice mail message to herself. In it she referred to Bob Lazar of Area 51 claim. She said Lazar had it wrong and that everything he said to do was 100% backwards.
Supposedly she figured the black hats (maybe the true “Men in Black?”) were monitoring her real time and they immediately began harassing her literally to death. So they were “sitting” on her cell phone and grew very concerned when they figured out she had cracked the secret to anti-gravity.
The not so odd thing is that now when I search details about her I find only references to her many texts and conversations with others as she expressed concern for her safety. BUT I cannot find references of her voice mail message saying Bob Lazar had everything backwards.
Is there a possibility they are getting paid the same way the "white supremacists" are by the SPLC?