Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

KOZAK CHRONICLES & THE ASS*SSINATION NARRATIVE PRODUCTION NETWORK: On September 13th, 2025, a sometimes smiling Taylor Belle Dean appeared with her Aunt Tiffany Barker on NewsNation to tell us: 'They Shot Charlie', that at first they 'Thought it was a firework', and that we have to 'remember Jesus, that's...

BasedSamParker's profile picture

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

132,197 subscribers

58,758 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

THE MYSTERIOUS CASE OF THE OTHER MICROPHONE MAN: COOPER BROWN—AND THE ORIGINAL WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT CHARLIE KIRK WAS SHOT IN THE CHEST Candace Owens Baron Coleman Jimmy Dore 18 minutes after Charlie Kirk was k*lled, Cooper Brown infamously physically stopped Jeb Jacobi from telling us Charlie had been shot in the neck. That was at 12:42 PM MDT. And then Cooper himself went on Fox News later that day to tell us the exact same thing at about 6:35 PM MDT. Have you ever wondered what explains this sequence of events? It might have something to do with the fact that there seemed to be an original narrative earlier in the afternoon that Charlie had been shot in the chest, but which was soon changed to the story we know now that he'd been shot in the neck. Shot in the chest = Narrative 1.0 Shot in the neck = Narrative 2.0 One witness, "Sarah from Draper", went on national TV at 1:17 PM MDT to tell us that Charlie had been shot in the chest (Narrative 1.0). Then she went on TV again at 2:08 PM MDT, just 51 minutes later, and changed her story to Charlie having been shot in the neck (Narrative 2.0). When Jeb Jacobi told everyone that Charlie had been shot in the neck, it's possible that Cooper Brown was still operating on the pre-established Narrative 1.0, "Shot in the chest," and Cooper intervened to stop Jeb's narrative from getting out. At that moment in time, from Cooper's POV (allegedly), the official Narrative (1.0) was supposed to be a chest shot. Later, after the Narrative had to be modified to 2.0, Cooper went on national news to help establish the new version—along with the rest of the fake narrative: that Charlie had been taken out by a disgruntled Leftist. Nevermind that Tyler Robinson hadn't yet been captured. ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION SCENARIO (ALLEGEDLY): Charlie's mic or necklace was supposed to explode, simulating a .30-06 shot to the chest. Something unanticipated happened creating a neck wound. Cooper's back was to the scene as it happened, so he didn't see the neck wound. But he did inadvertently tell us that he turned around due to the sound of the "POP!" (which must have come from behind him to his right). This was the Rode Mic (or maybe necklace) exploding. Once the police herded everyone into the Sorenson Student Center, that's where we got the confrontation between him and Jeb Jacobi. Cooper didn't yet know the shifted narrative: he hadn't seen what happened, and was still programmed to enforce Narrative 1.0, the chest shot. About 35 minutes after the Brown/Jacobi altercation, "Sarah From Draper"—herself still operating on Narrative 1.0—went on TV to tell us Charlie was shot in the chest. Sometime after that, whomever was orchestring this narrative control and cover-up, issued the new directive: Narrative 2.0, Charlie was shot in the neck. And just 51 minutes later, Sarah was paraded out on TV again to establish the new tall tale. And then Cooper Brown was sent onto Fox News, not once but twice: once the evening of the 10th, and another time in the early afternoon on September 11th. The second time, he helped parrot the other critical part of the anchoring narrative: that Charlie had been taken out by a disgruntled Leftist. And then, "ABRACADABRA!" a few hours later, Tyler Robinson would turn himself in. And the rest, as they say, is history. NOTES ON JEB JACOBI: Some have observed Jeb Jacobi's odd video rehearsal with Phil Lyman a few minutes after Charlie's death, just before the altercation with Cooper Brown. Why was he rehearsing his testimony that Charlie had been shot in the neck? Is it because it was different from the original narrative he was supposed to give us? It's also been noted that Jacobi was the only other person known to have covered his ears or grabbed his head, besides Hunter Kozak, when Charlie was killed. Why were they the only ones in the crowd that reacted this way? Then, somehow, Jacobi appeared on "60 Minutes" with Hunter Kozak, where they both helped anchor the original narrative that Leftist violence is the problem and that we need more open dialogue. This helped reinforce the "trans-furry Leftist Tyler Robinson did it" patsy narrative. Was the Jacobi-Brown altercation a case of two different hands of the same corrupt body reacting on the fly to a situation that had gone awry—not realizing that they were each playing a movie role for the same Director? DISCLAIMER: This is just a possible theoretical interpretation of events, given the information we have, and no actual guilt is being imputed, nor am I making any accusations. H/t: Charliesangels47 for finding the before and after Sarah footage.
9:30

THE MYSTERIOUS CASE OF THE OTHER MICROPHONE MAN: COOPER BROWN—AND THE ORIGINAL WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT CHARLIE KIRK WAS SHOT IN THE CHEST Candace Owens Baron Coleman Jimmy Dore 18 minutes after Charlie Kirk was k*lled, Cooper Brown infamously physically stopped Jeb Jacobi from telling us Charlie had been shot in the neck. That was at 12:42 PM MDT. And then Cooper himself went on Fox News later that day to tell us the exact same thing at about 6:35 PM MDT. Have you ever wondered what explains this sequence of events? It might have something to do with the fact that there seemed to be an original narrative earlier in the afternoon that Charlie had been shot in the chest, but which was soon changed to the story we know now that he'd been shot in the neck. Shot in the chest = Narrative 1.0 Shot in the neck = Narrative 2.0 One witness, "Sarah from Draper", went on national TV at 1:17 PM MDT to tell us that Charlie had been shot in the chest (Narrative 1.0). Then she went on TV again at 2:08 PM MDT, just 51 minutes later, and changed her story to Charlie having been shot in the neck (Narrative 2.0). When Jeb Jacobi told everyone that Charlie had been shot in the neck, it's possible that Cooper Brown was still operating on the pre-established Narrative 1.0, "Shot in the chest," and Cooper intervened to stop Jeb's narrative from getting out. At that moment in time, from Cooper's POV (allegedly), the official Narrative (1.0) was supposed to be a chest shot. Later, after the Narrative had to be modified to 2.0, Cooper went on national news to help establish the new version—along with the rest of the fake narrative: that Charlie had been taken out by a disgruntled Leftist. Nevermind that Tyler Robinson hadn't yet been captured. ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION SCENARIO (ALLEGEDLY): Charlie's mic or necklace was supposed to explode, simulating a .30-06 shot to the chest. Something unanticipated happened creating a neck wound. Cooper's back was to the scene as it happened, so he didn't see the neck wound. But he did inadvertently tell us that he turned around due to the sound of the "POP!" (which must have come from behind him to his right). This was the Rode Mic (or maybe necklace) exploding. Once the police herded everyone into the Sorenson Student Center, that's where we got the confrontation between him and Jeb Jacobi. Cooper didn't yet know the shifted narrative: he hadn't seen what happened, and was still programmed to enforce Narrative 1.0, the chest shot. About 35 minutes after the Brown/Jacobi altercation, "Sarah From Draper"—herself still operating on Narrative 1.0—went on TV to tell us Charlie was shot in the chest. Sometime after that, whomever was orchestring this narrative control and cover-up, issued the new directive: Narrative 2.0, Charlie was shot in the neck. And just 51 minutes later, Sarah was paraded out on TV again to establish the new tall tale. And then Cooper Brown was sent onto Fox News, not once but twice: once the evening of the 10th, and another time in the early afternoon on September 11th. The second time, he helped parrot the other critical part of the anchoring narrative: that Charlie had been taken out by a disgruntled Leftist. And then, "ABRACADABRA!" a few hours later, Tyler Robinson would turn himself in. And the rest, as they say, is history. NOTES ON JEB JACOBI: Some have observed Jeb Jacobi's odd video rehearsal with Phil Lyman a few minutes after Charlie's death, just before the altercation with Cooper Brown. Why was he rehearsing his testimony that Charlie had been shot in the neck? Is it because it was different from the original narrative he was supposed to give us? It's also been noted that Jacobi was the only other person known to have covered his ears or grabbed his head, besides Hunter Kozak, when Charlie was killed. Why were they the only ones in the crowd that reacted this way? Then, somehow, Jacobi appeared on "60 Minutes" with Hunter Kozak, where they both helped anchor the original narrative that Leftist violence is the problem and that we need more open dialogue. This helped reinforce the "trans-furry Leftist Tyler Robinson did it" patsy narrative. Was the Jacobi-Brown altercation a case of two different hands of the same corrupt body reacting on the fly to a situation that had gone awry—not realizing that they were each playing a movie role for the same Director? DISCLAIMER: This is just a possible theoretical interpretation of events, given the information we have, and no actual guilt is being imputed, nor am I making any accusations. H/t: Charliesangels47 for finding the before and after Sarah footage.

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

64,882 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

ON THE CHARLIE KIRK "AUTOPSY" Now that a body armor ricochet has been definitively eliminated, the conventional "straight-on shot" narrative demands we now believe that Charlie Kirk's magic neck magically stopped another magic bullet. As you contemplate Andrew Kolvet's Superman explanation of Charlie's death, just remember: ▪️JFK's autopsy was botched & the results were tampered with. ▪️RFK's autopsy results were ignored. ▪️MLK's autopsy covered up the exact cause of his death. Maybe Tyler Robinson killed Charlie the way they say he did, a .30-06 shot that Charlie's neck miraculously stopped. And if it's proven to my satisfaction some day that that's the case, then I'll accept it. But today is not that day. In the meantime, learn how MLK Jr. actually died and how they lied to you about it:
2:48

ON THE CHARLIE KIRK "AUTOPSY" Now that a body armor ricochet has been definitively eliminated, the conventional "straight-on shot" narrative demands we now believe that Charlie Kirk's magic neck magically stopped another magic bullet. As you contemplate Andrew Kolvet's Superman explanation of Charlie's death, just remember: ▪️JFK's autopsy was botched & the results were tampered with. ▪️RFK's autopsy results were ignored. ▪️MLK's autopsy covered up the exact cause of his death. Maybe Tyler Robinson killed Charlie the way they say he did, a .30-06 shot that Charlie's neck miraculously stopped. And if it's proven to my satisfaction some day that that's the case, then I'll accept it. But today is not that day. In the meantime, learn how MLK Jr. actually died and how they lied to you about it:

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

222,727 просмотров • 1 год назад

Elon Musk: We will not accept an anointed class of journalists who tell us what to think. “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Interview with the BBC, April 12, 2023
0:57

Elon Musk: We will not accept an anointed class of journalists who tell us what to think. “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Interview with the BBC, April 12, 2023

ELON CLIPS

1,266,090 просмотров • 1 год назад

❤️ NOW: THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS just broke out into chants of "CHARLIE! CHARLIE!" at the RNC after JD Vance eulogized him Beautiful 🙏🏻 "I want you to know what your dad knew. Scripture says that God is a father to the fatherless." "One year ago today, on September the 10th of last year, that good friend was taken from us when Charlie was assassinated. Now, Charlie left behind two children, two little kids. They were too young to fully understand." "I hope that one day they will watch and they will know and they will understand what I'm trying to say to them tonight. Though they may not appreciate it today, history will record that your father was a great man!" We will always remember Charlie.
1:57

❤️ NOW: THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS just broke out into chants of "CHARLIE! CHARLIE!" at the RNC after JD Vance eulogized him Beautiful 🙏🏻 "I want you to know what your dad knew. Scripture says that God is a father to the fatherless." "One year ago today, on September the 10th of last year, that good friend was taken from us when Charlie was assassinated. Now, Charlie left behind two children, two little kids. They were too young to fully understand." "I hope that one day they will watch and they will know and they will understand what I'm trying to say to them tonight. Though they may not appreciate it today, history will record that your father was a great man!" We will always remember Charlie.

Eric Daugherty

39,817 просмотров • 28 дней назад

Warren Buffett jokes about Charlie Munger's Costco obsession "Charlie and I were on a plane recently that was hijacked. The hijackers picked us out as the two dirty capitalists that they really had to execute" "They were a little abashed about it, they didn't really have anything against us, so they said each of us would be given one request before they shot us. They turned to Charlie and said, what would you like as your request?" "Charlie said, I would like to give once more my speech on the virtues of Costco, with illustrations. And the hijacker said, well, that sounds pretty reasonable to me" "He turned to me and said, and what would you like, Mr. Buffett? And I said, shoot me first"
1:00

Warren Buffett jokes about Charlie Munger's Costco obsession "Charlie and I were on a plane recently that was hijacked. The hijackers picked us out as the two dirty capitalists that they really had to execute" "They were a little abashed about it, they didn't really have anything against us, so they said each of us would be given one request before they shot us. They turned to Charlie and said, what would you like as your request?" "Charlie said, I would like to give once more my speech on the virtues of Costco, with illustrations. And the hijacker said, well, that sounds pretty reasonable to me" "He turned to me and said, and what would you like, Mr. Buffett? And I said, shoot me first"

Jaynit

310,986 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

ELON: WE WILL NOT ACCEPT AN ANOINTED CLASS OF JOURNALISTS WHO TELL US WHAT TO THINK “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023, Elon Musk
0:57

ELON: WE WILL NOT ACCEPT AN ANOINTED CLASS OF JOURNALISTS WHO TELL US WHAT TO THINK “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

115,251 просмотров • 1 год назад

The most SICKENING thing is how Charlie Kirk's entire show and company moved on like nothing ever even happened. Also, come to find out that Charlie Kirk had a CATHOLIC funeral and was buried in a CATHOLIC cemetery. Strange how they hid this information. Almost like it ruins their narrative and agenda that Charlie didn't just "like the architecture of Catholic churches," and shows that maybe Charlie was about to convert to Catholicism like we were told in the first place, but was then covered up. I will tell you that you first need to understand who these people really are and the control and funding behind them. Charlie started to steer away from what they wanted him to do. Charlie started to notice the TRUTH and the LIES and he started to tell the world. The people funding Charlie's company didn't like that and neither did the people under Charlie who were getting paid. Charlie chose the road of TRUTH, while the others chose not to lose the FUNDING of the DONORS and a plan was made that did not include Charlie, but Charlie owned the company. This was a major problem. Charlie was then eliminated and removed and TPUSA continues the direction that THEY wanted to go. Not CHARLIE'S direction or to push the TRUTH... The direction that the MONEY tells them to go and the agenda and narratives they are told to push. It's time to wake up from your slumber and understand that Charlie was assassinated for telling the truth and calling out the lies and corruption. They couldn't afford to be exposed, so they killed him. It's clear as day. cc: Candace Owens
5:29

The most SICKENING thing is how Charlie Kirk's entire show and company moved on like nothing ever even happened. Also, come to find out that Charlie Kirk had a CATHOLIC funeral and was buried in a CATHOLIC cemetery. Strange how they hid this information. Almost like it ruins their narrative and agenda that Charlie didn't just "like the architecture of Catholic churches," and shows that maybe Charlie was about to convert to Catholicism like we were told in the first place, but was then covered up. I will tell you that you first need to understand who these people really are and the control and funding behind them. Charlie started to steer away from what they wanted him to do. Charlie started to notice the TRUTH and the LIES and he started to tell the world. The people funding Charlie's company didn't like that and neither did the people under Charlie who were getting paid. Charlie chose the road of TRUTH, while the others chose not to lose the FUNDING of the DONORS and a plan was made that did not include Charlie, but Charlie owned the company. This was a major problem. Charlie was then eliminated and removed and TPUSA continues the direction that THEY wanted to go. Not CHARLIE'S direction or to push the TRUTH... The direction that the MONEY tells them to go and the agenda and narratives they are told to push. It's time to wake up from your slumber and understand that Charlie was assassinated for telling the truth and calling out the lies and corruption. They couldn't afford to be exposed, so they killed him. It's clear as day. cc: Candace Owens

The SCIF

203,485 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Was Shelby Kozak operating inside TPUSA? Was she TPUSA’s link to Hunter Kozak? He was clearly familiar with Terrell Farnsworth. Hunter Kozak asked Charlie Kirk the final question of his life. Hunter is tied to the Unfuck America Tour, the group that shadowed Charlie’s events to challenge and interrupt them. A Project Constitution post first noted that Hunter’s wife, Shelby Kozak, was in the UVU crowd on September 10. Eleven months later, Hunter confirmed it. Her face looked familiar for a reason. She appears in a TPUSA group photo. Put the pieces next to each other: Hunter’s wife is linked to an organization whose views sit at the opposite end of the spectrum from the group Hunter works with. Charlie Kirk is then killed at the exact event where Hunter asks the last question. As well as showing Hunter practicing his shock and horror at Charlie’s assassination, ten minutes before he even gets up to speak to Charlie, this footage from before the also Q&A shows Hunter and Terrell Farnsworth exchanging looks and small gestures while another speaker is still at the mic. Hunter forms a finger-gun with his hand and points it toward Charlie. Terrell answers with a sharp, warning glance and shakes his head in disbelief. Does Erika Kirk know any of this? Why were Hunter and Shelby not standing together? Why didn’t Hunter look for her the moment the shot went off? Why wait eleven months to say she was even there? What, exactly, was Shelby doing with TPUSA?
1:01

Was Shelby Kozak operating inside TPUSA? Was she TPUSA’s link to Hunter Kozak? He was clearly familiar with Terrell Farnsworth. Hunter Kozak asked Charlie Kirk the final question of his life. Hunter is tied to the Unfuck America Tour, the group that shadowed Charlie’s events to challenge and interrupt them. A Project Constitution post first noted that Hunter’s wife, Shelby Kozak, was in the UVU crowd on September 10. Eleven months later, Hunter confirmed it. Her face looked familiar for a reason. She appears in a TPUSA group photo. Put the pieces next to each other: Hunter’s wife is linked to an organization whose views sit at the opposite end of the spectrum from the group Hunter works with. Charlie Kirk is then killed at the exact event where Hunter asks the last question. As well as showing Hunter practicing his shock and horror at Charlie’s assassination, ten minutes before he even gets up to speak to Charlie, this footage from before the also Q&A shows Hunter and Terrell Farnsworth exchanging looks and small gestures while another speaker is still at the mic. Hunter forms a finger-gun with his hand and points it toward Charlie. Terrell answers with a sharp, warning glance and shakes his head in disbelief. Does Erika Kirk know any of this? Why were Hunter and Shelby not standing together? Why didn’t Hunter look for her the moment the shot went off? Why wait eleven months to say she was even there? What, exactly, was Shelby doing with TPUSA?

John Galt

181,689 просмотров • 18 дней назад

Were any of these people's REACTIONS even GENUINE? This was an EXTREMELY engineered operation. Why was HUNTER KOZAK filmed rehearsing a reaction, which turned out to be the exact same thing he did when Charlie got shot? Why are they REHEARSING how they are going to REACT or taking multiple videos to make sure YOU, the audience, get hit EMOTIONALLY, the hardest? Why does it ALWAYS seem to circle around the same people? How DEEP does the assassination of Charlie Kirk really go? How many KNEW EXACTLY WHAT and WHEN was going to happen on September 10th, 2025 at UVU, when Charlie was assassinated? This is like a JFK/J6 situation combined and all over again. We are being HEAVILY DECEIVED. cc: Ryan Matta, HustleBitch_
5:24

Were any of these people's REACTIONS even GENUINE? This was an EXTREMELY engineered operation. Why was HUNTER KOZAK filmed rehearsing a reaction, which turned out to be the exact same thing he did when Charlie got shot? Why are they REHEARSING how they are going to REACT or taking multiple videos to make sure YOU, the audience, get hit EMOTIONALLY, the hardest? Why does it ALWAYS seem to circle around the same people? How DEEP does the assassination of Charlie Kirk really go? How many KNEW EXACTLY WHAT and WHEN was going to happen on September 10th, 2025 at UVU, when Charlie was assassinated? This is like a JFK/J6 situation combined and all over again. We are being HEAVILY DECEIVED. cc: Ryan Matta, HustleBitch_

The SCIF

71,744 просмотров • 1 год назад

I saw two stories about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk and they couldn't have been more different. One story said, “The bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did not match the rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson”. That headline is designed to raise your heart rate: WHAT?! They don't match?! What else did they lie about?! The second headline emphasized important context: there was an “inconclusive link between the bullet from the autopsy and the rifle.” So, the bullet was too destroyed to tell if it matched at all. That's a huge difference. This is the key to surviving in today's insane media landscape. When you read a headline, ask yourself: what kind of narrative are they trying to build in my mind? Are they telling me what to think or giving me the facts needed to make my own decision?
5:59

I saw two stories about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk and they couldn't have been more different. One story said, “The bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did not match the rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson”. That headline is designed to raise your heart rate: WHAT?! They don't match?! What else did they lie about?! The second headline emphasized important context: there was an “inconclusive link between the bullet from the autopsy and the rifle.” So, the bullet was too destroyed to tell if it matched at all. That's a huge difference. This is the key to surviving in today's insane media landscape. When you read a headline, ask yourself: what kind of narrative are they trying to build in my mind? Are they telling me what to think or giving me the facts needed to make my own decision?

Glenn Beck

216,942 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

What did we learn this Friday? We realized the new photos have a huge impact, with the shattered sticky-backed Rode mic scattered all over the SUV. Pieces of debris look very off-putting to the naked eye (burnt-like adhesive), especially since they got rid of all of it… not in evidence… and still more hasn’t come out. During all these “remembered testimonies” that contradicted each other, none described what was in the SUV. It’s a lot. I hope anyone involved who knows more comes forward with more/all the details. There’s a lot going on here, and they are already making a movie about “Who is Charlie Kirk” before we’ve even had the trial. It’s scary. Baron is on point. If all these important higher-ranking people are questioning the narrative, then we don’t have everything and we should dig more. Charlie was worth the highest level of investigation into his ass@ssination. It feels unresolved, and there is no harm in looking at every scenario because that is what Charlie would have done for anyone else.
4:24

What did we learn this Friday? We realized the new photos have a huge impact, with the shattered sticky-backed Rode mic scattered all over the SUV. Pieces of debris look very off-putting to the naked eye (burnt-like adhesive), especially since they got rid of all of it… not in evidence… and still more hasn’t come out. During all these “remembered testimonies” that contradicted each other, none described what was in the SUV. It’s a lot. I hope anyone involved who knows more comes forward with more/all the details. There’s a lot going on here, and they are already making a movie about “Who is Charlie Kirk” before we’ve even had the trial. It’s scary. Baron is on point. If all these important higher-ranking people are questioning the narrative, then we don’t have everything and we should dig more. Charlie was worth the highest level of investigation into his ass@ssination. It feels unresolved, and there is no harm in looking at every scenario because that is what Charlie would have done for anyone else.

Ashley Pagels

36,324 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Phillip: Why are they dismissing the conditions on the ship? Lyman: They aren’t. Phillip: You need to take a deep breath. You are denying that they downplayed what was going on that ship. And that's not accurate. They did downplay what went on that on that ship Lyman: There are. 5000 people on the ship. We have three in total overboard incidents that we know of. Phillip: No big deal? Lyman: How dare you accuse me of trying to downplay it. If you're doing a statistical comparison…. Phillip: So we have to wait till more people jump off the ship?
2:52

Phillip: Why are they dismissing the conditions on the ship? Lyman: They aren’t. Phillip: You need to take a deep breath. You are denying that they downplayed what was going on that ship. And that's not accurate. They did downplay what went on that on that ship Lyman: There are. 5000 people on the ship. We have three in total overboard incidents that we know of. Phillip: No big deal? Lyman: How dare you accuse me of trying to downplay it. If you're doing a statistical comparison…. Phillip: So we have to wait till more people jump off the ship?

Acyn

176,169 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

CNN BACKLASH IS MOUNTING: They just announced a documentary covering the "rise of Christian Nationalism" in America, and it's not going how they expected it to go. Andrew Kolvet let the TRUTH about America's spiritual revival and the role Charlie Kirk has in it: "Consider this: so CNN does a piece- talking about the radicalization of people at Charlie's memorial. Charlie was assassinated by a radical, by somebody that was animated, at least in part, by his love affair with somebody that was trans. And instead of burning down the country, like the real radicals did, we held vigils and memorials, and people bought Bibles, and they got baptized." "How is that a bad thing? What are we even talking about here?" Much of this surge can be DIRECTLY attributed to Charlie Kirk and the phenomenal work he did. CNN has lost control of the narrative, and this one didn't even last a couple HOURS before getting DEMOLISHED!
7:38

CNN BACKLASH IS MOUNTING: They just announced a documentary covering the "rise of Christian Nationalism" in America, and it's not going how they expected it to go. Andrew Kolvet let the TRUTH about America's spiritual revival and the role Charlie Kirk has in it: "Consider this: so CNN does a piece- talking about the radicalization of people at Charlie's memorial. Charlie was assassinated by a radical, by somebody that was animated, at least in part, by his love affair with somebody that was trans. And instead of burning down the country, like the real radicals did, we held vigils and memorials, and people bought Bibles, and they got baptized." "How is that a bad thing? What are we even talking about here?" Much of this surge can be DIRECTLY attributed to Charlie Kirk and the phenomenal work he did. CNN has lost control of the narrative, and this one didn't even last a couple HOURS before getting DEMOLISHED!

Gunther Eagleman™

103,099 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

CLOSER LOOK: The Terryl Farnsworth segment of the Brian Harpole/Shawn Ryan discussion is full of so much alleged psychological massaging, you simply have to watch it again. Here's what I noticed, and I'm interested to know what you all notice that I may have missed: STRATEGIC OMISSION: They covered Terryl Farnsworth but completely avoided any discussion of him declaring Charlie dead in the secret video recording--which is THE PRIMARY BOMBSHELL in Farnsworth's video. MISQUOTING: They actually get Terryl's quote wrong. Farnsworth said "They shot Charlie," not "Charlie's been shot." Small, but oh-so-BIG difference. MISDIRECTION: Why did they frame his secret selfie as a kind of TikTok "clout posting" when the video wasn't streamed or posted? It's a false framing that implants an incorrect characterization into the minds of the watchers. It feels like an effort to absolve Terryl of something rather than a quest for truth. NEW REVELATIONS: Terryl Farnsworth doesn't actually work for TPUSA as everyone has assumed, rather he worked for a company called Visual Impulse (VI) that TPUSA contracted. Why did TPUSA let that false assumption stand for so long? MARGINALIZATION: They never uttered Terryl Farnsworth's name, and to listen to Brian, you'd think he barely knew who Terryl was--odd since Terryl had security clearance to be inside the "no-go" zone. Is Brian accountable for anything under his security purview?! STRAW MAN: People didn't just object to Farnsworth because he might have deleted or destroyed the footage, which is how Brian & Shawn framed it, they objected to him illegally tampering with the crime scene and possibly destroying critical forensic evidence like the camera placement. SELF-ABSOLUTION: "It's not for me to understand..." Gotcha, Brian. The stairs, the Sorenson Center, the Losee Center, the drones, the rooftops--people inside the perimeter--none of that's your job. Above your pay grade? SMH! Remember: Candace Owens reported that Terryl Farnsworth doesn't normally handle these kinds of events, and that he admitted to her "they were trying something new that day." (Indeed, Farnsworth wasn't at the follow-up Utah event on September 30th) Tell me what you see here, and leave a like and a retweet for the algo, please, so that we can crowdsource this. I feel like there is more going on here. Leave no stone unturned. (BTW: I ascribe no guilt to anyone here, I'm just looking at all the details and seeing where they lead)
2:14

CLOSER LOOK: The Terryl Farnsworth segment of the Brian Harpole/Shawn Ryan discussion is full of so much alleged psychological massaging, you simply have to watch it again. Here's what I noticed, and I'm interested to know what you all notice that I may have missed: STRATEGIC OMISSION: They covered Terryl Farnsworth but completely avoided any discussion of him declaring Charlie dead in the secret video recording--which is THE PRIMARY BOMBSHELL in Farnsworth's video. MISQUOTING: They actually get Terryl's quote wrong. Farnsworth said "They shot Charlie," not "Charlie's been shot." Small, but oh-so-BIG difference. MISDIRECTION: Why did they frame his secret selfie as a kind of TikTok "clout posting" when the video wasn't streamed or posted? It's a false framing that implants an incorrect characterization into the minds of the watchers. It feels like an effort to absolve Terryl of something rather than a quest for truth. NEW REVELATIONS: Terryl Farnsworth doesn't actually work for TPUSA as everyone has assumed, rather he worked for a company called Visual Impulse (VI) that TPUSA contracted. Why did TPUSA let that false assumption stand for so long? MARGINALIZATION: They never uttered Terryl Farnsworth's name, and to listen to Brian, you'd think he barely knew who Terryl was--odd since Terryl had security clearance to be inside the "no-go" zone. Is Brian accountable for anything under his security purview?! STRAW MAN: People didn't just object to Farnsworth because he might have deleted or destroyed the footage, which is how Brian & Shawn framed it, they objected to him illegally tampering with the crime scene and possibly destroying critical forensic evidence like the camera placement. SELF-ABSOLUTION: "It's not for me to understand..." Gotcha, Brian. The stairs, the Sorenson Center, the Losee Center, the drones, the rooftops--people inside the perimeter--none of that's your job. Above your pay grade? SMH! Remember: Candace Owens reported that Terryl Farnsworth doesn't normally handle these kinds of events, and that he admitted to her "they were trying something new that day." (Indeed, Farnsworth wasn't at the follow-up Utah event on September 30th) Tell me what you see here, and leave a like and a retweet for the algo, please, so that we can crowdsource this. I feel like there is more going on here. Leave no stone unturned. (BTW: I ascribe no guilt to anyone here, I'm just looking at all the details and seeing where they lead)

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

79,366 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Scott Jennings on the Trump administration’s handling of the U.S. economy: “What they did is not for short-term gain. It was for long-term reordering of the American economy. And if you talk to their people, Bessent and Hassett and the others, they believe what they did with the tariffs, what they did with the tax, that permanency and other tax cuts in the summer is going to lead to a boom in 2026.” “The January data suggest that they might be right. But there's other things going on here regarding what kind of jobs we have in America. One of the big things I look at in the chart today was, we have the lowest amount of federal government workforce since 1966.” “Yet private sector jobs going up, government jobs going down that was the purpose of what they were doing to grow the private sector to shrink jobs. I've been working in Republican politics for 26 years. Every Republican I've ever worked for said they were going to shrink the government. Trump's the only one that ever did it.” “We literally have the smallest federal workforce in '66 and as a percentage of the overall workforce, the smallest on record. I want more private sector. I want less government. So, if you're a Republican and you look at that, you're thinking, gosh, this guy's actually executing on what they always told us they were going to do.”
1:26

Scott Jennings on the Trump administration’s handling of the U.S. economy: “What they did is not for short-term gain. It was for long-term reordering of the American economy. And if you talk to their people, Bessent and Hassett and the others, they believe what they did with the tariffs, what they did with the tax, that permanency and other tax cuts in the summer is going to lead to a boom in 2026.” “The January data suggest that they might be right. But there's other things going on here regarding what kind of jobs we have in America. One of the big things I look at in the chart today was, we have the lowest amount of federal government workforce since 1966.” “Yet private sector jobs going up, government jobs going down that was the purpose of what they were doing to grow the private sector to shrink jobs. I've been working in Republican politics for 26 years. Every Republican I've ever worked for said they were going to shrink the government. Trump's the only one that ever did it.” “We literally have the smallest federal workforce in '66 and as a percentage of the overall workforce, the smallest on record. I want more private sector. I want less government. So, if you're a Republican and you look at that, you're thinking, gosh, this guy's actually executing on what they always told us they were going to do.”

RedWave Press

179,096 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Did HUNTER KOZAK drop the question to Charlie Kirk as the "CUE" for the assassin to take the shot? The "CUE" question was not only for the assassin to take the shot, it was a political statement and a signature. There are no coincidences. Destiny who is an online streamer was planning an "Unfu*k America Tour." Hunter Kozak who asked Charlie the last question was part of Destiny's tour. The entire "Unfu*k America Tour" was scheduled to go to every major TPUSA event specifically to harass and protest them. Destiny was just openly calling for all Trump supporters and people with conservative views and beliefs to be sh*t and murd*red. In Hunter Kozak's first public appearance on the news, something about his body language and his facial expressions showed almost laughter and happiness explaining what happened to Charlie. Body language alone speaks 80% more than words and can tell you a lot about someone because they're extremely harder to control. It's likely Hunter initiated the "CUE" question for the shot, especially being associated with Destiny's tour, his acquaintances, but most importantly, the complete change of dialogue and the question itself when Charlie was shot. It's all connected.
1:57

Did HUNTER KOZAK drop the question to Charlie Kirk as the "CUE" for the assassin to take the shot? The "CUE" question was not only for the assassin to take the shot, it was a political statement and a signature. There are no coincidences. Destiny who is an online streamer was planning an "Unfu*k America Tour." Hunter Kozak who asked Charlie the last question was part of Destiny's tour. The entire "Unfu*k America Tour" was scheduled to go to every major TPUSA event specifically to harass and protest them. Destiny was just openly calling for all Trump supporters and people with conservative views and beliefs to be sh*t and murd*red. In Hunter Kozak's first public appearance on the news, something about his body language and his facial expressions showed almost laughter and happiness explaining what happened to Charlie. Body language alone speaks 80% more than words and can tell you a lot about someone because they're extremely harder to control. It's likely Hunter initiated the "CUE" question for the shot, especially being associated with Destiny's tour, his acquaintances, but most importantly, the complete change of dialogue and the question itself when Charlie was shot. It's all connected.

The SCIF

568,031 просмотров • 1 год назад

I will never forget Saturday, July 13th, 2024. The first person to text me that President Trump had been shot was Charlie Kirk. It was a normal day, spending time with family and suddenly, that text message changed everything. The world has not been the same since. To see it all come full circle is maddening They assassinated my friend Charlie Kirk in broad daylight. They've tried to assassinate the President at least 8 times that we know of and they are still trying. This isn't a conspiracy theory, This is what the Left does. These people are sick. They are the enemy, and they won't rest until we are destroyed. That is exactly why we need to fight, fight, fight. For Charlie 🇺🇸
3:46

I will never forget Saturday, July 13th, 2024. The first person to text me that President Trump had been shot was Charlie Kirk. It was a normal day, spending time with family and suddenly, that text message changed everything. The world has not been the same since. To see it all come full circle is maddening They assassinated my friend Charlie Kirk in broad daylight. They've tried to assassinate the President at least 8 times that we know of and they are still trying. This isn't a conspiracy theory, This is what the Left does. These people are sick. They are the enemy, and they won't rest until we are destroyed. That is exactly why we need to fight, fight, fight. For Charlie 🇺🇸

Benny Johnson

153,711 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 Marco Rubio DROPPED this line then walked away from the Fake News: "The people of Iran deserve better leadership. They slaughter their own people. By the thousands, they shoot them in the head, they slaughter them in the streets. Yeah, we don't like that!" "We don't think that's good for Iran. But our goal and our national interests in Iran is they can never have a nuclear weapon. And that's what they were going to try to do." "If they have been able to hide behind, double the number of missiles, double the number of drones. That's what they would have been in about a year, had they continued on the pace of construction." "Even though their economy was suffering, even though their people were suffering, that's what they were spending their money on." "Even though they had sanctions. The money that was coming in, they were spending it on those things. That tells you everything you need to know about them."
0:49

🚨 Marco Rubio DROPPED this line then walked away from the Fake News: "The people of Iran deserve better leadership. They slaughter their own people. By the thousands, they shoot them in the head, they slaughter them in the streets. Yeah, we don't like that!" "We don't think that's good for Iran. But our goal and our national interests in Iran is they can never have a nuclear weapon. And that's what they were going to try to do." "If they have been able to hide behind, double the number of missiles, double the number of drones. That's what they would have been in about a year, had they continued on the pace of construction." "Even though their economy was suffering, even though their people were suffering, that's what they were spending their money on." "Even though they had sanctions. The money that was coming in, they were spending it on those things. That tells you everything you need to know about them."

Eric Daugherty

89,389 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад