Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

This clip is incredibly prescient. A kid asks Charlie about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Charlie admits something most people online refuse to admit: some aspects are strange and hard to explain. But then he says the most important line: “I don’t know. And you’re allowed to be in the position...

NJBeisner's profile picture

Natalie Jean Beisner

119,703 subscribers

83,228 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

ComedyNews & PoliticsEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Tucker Carlson asked Joe Kent why the Thomas Crooks surveillance tapes haven’t been released. Kent’s answer blew him away. He explained the government deliberately withholds information to create noise with conspiracy theories, so the “actual question never gets answered.” TUCKER: “The current president was the subject of a near-successful assassination attempt.” “And we’re just not going to look into very obviously or divulge information that everyone knows they have.” “For example, the surveillance tape from the shooting range at which Thomas Crooks trained, because it would answer the question, was he training with somebody?” “And if so, who? They have that footage, and they won’t release it. What could possibly be the explanation for that?” KENT: “I know what the result is. The result is people come to their own conclusions. And this is where crazy conspiracy theories come from.” “And then those conspiracy theories usually are easy to ‘debunk’ or make the people saying them sound crazy. So then the actual question never gets answered.” [Tucker laughs in awe] TUCKER: “Sorry. Can you say that for people who haven’t lived in Washington?” “I try to explain this to people all the time because this has been ongoing since at least the Kennedy assassination.” “But this is a very serious and recurring thing. It’s a tactic. And you just explained it better than anyone I’ve ever heard. Can you just do that again?” KENT: “So basically, you give no information whatsoever on something that’s obvious, that there should be information.” “You outlined there’s potentially footage of Crooks at the shooting range. Again, police, 101, go get the tapes. Let’s figure it out.” “If you don’t want to address that question, then you just go silent. You say, ‘you can’t ask that question,’ which then creates people who come out of kind of nowhere, and they start drawing their own conclusions.” “Knowing the way the internet works, half of them, if not more, are probably going to be so far off in left field... that then you can just be like, Oh, these people asking these questions about that tape at the video range. Crazy conspiracy theorists.’” “And so then you’ve just diverted all attention away from the thing that you’re trying to conceal. And now everyone’s focused on the crazies.” TUCKER: “Man.” KENT: “And then the second someone asks a legitimate question, they’re ‘crazy.’”
1:57

Tucker Carlson asked Joe Kent why the Thomas Crooks surveillance tapes haven’t been released. Kent’s answer blew him away. He explained the government deliberately withholds information to create noise with conspiracy theories, so the “actual question never gets answered.” TUCKER: “The current president was the subject of a near-successful assassination attempt.” “And we’re just not going to look into very obviously or divulge information that everyone knows they have.” “For example, the surveillance tape from the shooting range at which Thomas Crooks trained, because it would answer the question, was he training with somebody?” “And if so, who? They have that footage, and they won’t release it. What could possibly be the explanation for that?” KENT: “I know what the result is. The result is people come to their own conclusions. And this is where crazy conspiracy theories come from.” “And then those conspiracy theories usually are easy to ‘debunk’ or make the people saying them sound crazy. So then the actual question never gets answered.” [Tucker laughs in awe] TUCKER: “Sorry. Can you say that for people who haven’t lived in Washington?” “I try to explain this to people all the time because this has been ongoing since at least the Kennedy assassination.” “But this is a very serious and recurring thing. It’s a tactic. And you just explained it better than anyone I’ve ever heard. Can you just do that again?” KENT: “So basically, you give no information whatsoever on something that’s obvious, that there should be information.” “You outlined there’s potentially footage of Crooks at the shooting range. Again, police, 101, go get the tapes. Let’s figure it out.” “If you don’t want to address that question, then you just go silent. You say, ‘you can’t ask that question,’ which then creates people who come out of kind of nowhere, and they start drawing their own conclusions.” “Knowing the way the internet works, half of them, if not more, are probably going to be so far off in left field... that then you can just be like, Oh, these people asking these questions about that tape at the video range. Crazy conspiracy theorists.’” “And so then you’ve just diverted all attention away from the thing that you’re trying to conceal. And now everyone’s focused on the crazies.” TUCKER: “Man.” KENT: “And then the second someone asks a legitimate question, they’re ‘crazy.’”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,775,721 views • 5 months ago

Bill Maher just came to Charlie Kirk’s defense—saying he did something no one on the left was willing to do. Charlie built bridges and the left burned them down. And even Bill Maher knows it. “You know, they’re the people [the left] who don’t want to talk. It’s my main issue with them.” “Charlie Kirk was a guy who… he was ALWAYS talking.” “The right wingers, say what you want about them, but they talk to you.” “They’re not into this leftist think…the left really has much more of a I don’t talk to you, I don’t want to deal with you, you’re deplorable, I can’t break bread with you.” “All of the right wingers…they don’t have that attitude.” At least Maher is honest enough to call out his own side.
1:07

Bill Maher just came to Charlie Kirk’s defense—saying he did something no one on the left was willing to do. Charlie built bridges and the left burned them down. And even Bill Maher knows it. “You know, they’re the people [the left] who don’t want to talk. It’s my main issue with them.” “Charlie Kirk was a guy who… he was ALWAYS talking.” “The right wingers, say what you want about them, but they talk to you.” “They’re not into this leftist think…the left really has much more of a I don’t talk to you, I don’t want to deal with you, you’re deplorable, I can’t break bread with you.” “All of the right wingers…they don’t have that attitude.” At least Maher is honest enough to call out his own side.

Vigilant Fox 🦊

415,917 views • 11 months ago

Former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera: “By focusing on the censorship aspect and the First Amendment aspect, it’s losing sight of what should be the lead and that’s that Jimmy Kimmel owes the family of Charlie Kirk and his wife Erika, two small children, an apology. You know, you know, what’s he saying? That if you’re if you’re a member of MAGA and Charlie is a friend of MAG, of MAGA, then he had it coming. It’s just — it’s — it’s in some ways — it’s very — it’s — extremely — extremely insensitive. The country is in a country is in a very tough spot right now. Everyone is walking on eggshells. The First Amendment is not a license to incite hatred and, you know, I think that we can think that we can start the discussion once Jimmy Kimmel apologizes, then they can talk about the business aspects and whether or not he gets whether or not he gets back on the schedule and so forth, but there’s got to there’s got to be a recognition that a terrible thing has happened here, and that millions of Americans are grievously hurt by what happened. You know, there is a — Charlie Kirk was beloved by many. And to just trample over it. He’s not even buried yet for goodness sake. And to make fun of the flags at half staff and so forth. I just half staff and so forth. I just think that we’ve got to look at it with a — with a notion that the country has to be healed, that we have to work to bring people together, that we need to respect each other. You know, we don’t have to agree, but we have to respect. And I think that, you know, the audience has deserted him for a good reason.”
1:44

Former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera: “By focusing on the censorship aspect and the First Amendment aspect, it’s losing sight of what should be the lead and that’s that Jimmy Kimmel owes the family of Charlie Kirk and his wife Erika, two small children, an apology. You know, you know, what’s he saying? That if you’re if you’re a member of MAGA and Charlie is a friend of MAG, of MAGA, then he had it coming. It’s just — it’s — it’s in some ways — it’s very — it’s — extremely — extremely insensitive. The country is in a country is in a very tough spot right now. Everyone is walking on eggshells. The First Amendment is not a license to incite hatred and, you know, I think that we can think that we can start the discussion once Jimmy Kimmel apologizes, then they can talk about the business aspects and whether or not he gets whether or not he gets back on the schedule and so forth, but there’s got to there’s got to be a recognition that a terrible thing has happened here, and that millions of Americans are grievously hurt by what happened. You know, there is a — Charlie Kirk was beloved by many. And to just trample over it. He’s not even buried yet for goodness sake. And to make fun of the flags at half staff and so forth. I just half staff and so forth. I just think that we’ve got to look at it with a — with a notion that the country has to be healed, that we have to work to bring people together, that we need to respect each other. You know, we don’t have to agree, but we have to respect. And I think that, you know, the audience has deserted him for a good reason.”

Curtis Houck

825,225 views • 11 months ago

Let’s listen to attorney Baron Coleman to see what he thinks about ”the mountain of evidence” that was promised to the public. There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy involved at all in this case. I am not suggesting that. The question is if you/me/anyone/the jury would send a person to death IF (1) there isn’t enough substance to convince a jury about ’guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ AND (2) there’s no alternative assassin presented. Hopefully the answer is ’no’ (because that could be you/me/anyone/the jury sitting in Tyler Robinson’s chair). My point is that the trial is about Tyler Robinson’s guilt. The defense doesn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Charlie Kirk to prove his guilt (just like the defense in the OJ Simpson case didn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Nicole Brown). It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt and that’s what will ultimately matter in the trial.
2:27

Let’s listen to attorney Baron Coleman to see what he thinks about ”the mountain of evidence” that was promised to the public. There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy involved at all in this case. I am not suggesting that. The question is if you/me/anyone/the jury would send a person to death IF (1) there isn’t enough substance to convince a jury about ’guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ AND (2) there’s no alternative assassin presented. Hopefully the answer is ’no’ (because that could be you/me/anyone/the jury sitting in Tyler Robinson’s chair). My point is that the trial is about Tyler Robinson’s guilt. The defense doesn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Charlie Kirk to prove his guilt (just like the defense in the OJ Simpson case didn’t need an alternative theory about who killed Nicole Brown). It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt and that’s what will ultimately matter in the trial.

Turtle (𝔦, 𝔦)

10,753 views • 1 month ago

Tucker Carlson shares the unforgettable backstage moment when Charlie Kirk looked him in the eye and told him to “go all the way” with his raw feelings about Iran and Epstein. Charlie knew Tucker’s words would upset his donors, but he gave him the green light to speak freely at his event anyway. “I said [to Charlie] I'm probably not going to talk about that [regarding the Iran conflict]. I’m not going to torture you. I know your donors hate this when I say that. And also, Epstein was in the news, and it was clear to me that, you know, Epstein’s probably not like a Mossad agent or something, but Epstein clearly had contact with Israeli intelligence and American intelligence and French intelligence, but the only one you’re not allowed to talk about is Israeli intelligence. “But it seemed true to me, and I had done some work on that. I knew a bunch of people pretty close to that story. So I thought that. And I said that to Charlie, and I said, but I’m not going to say that because I don’t want to make your donors mad. I know it’s just going to be like an endless flurry of texts telling you to stop or you’re going to lose a bunch of funding. “And he looked at me, I’ll never forget it, and said, ‘Go all the way. Do it. Go all the way.’ I said, man, I. You know, a lot of things I can talk about. I don’t need to talk about that. And he said, ‘Do it.’”
1:54

Tucker Carlson shares the unforgettable backstage moment when Charlie Kirk looked him in the eye and told him to “go all the way” with his raw feelings about Iran and Epstein. Charlie knew Tucker’s words would upset his donors, but he gave him the green light to speak freely at his event anyway. “I said [to Charlie] I'm probably not going to talk about that [regarding the Iran conflict]. I’m not going to torture you. I know your donors hate this when I say that. And also, Epstein was in the news, and it was clear to me that, you know, Epstein’s probably not like a Mossad agent or something, but Epstein clearly had contact with Israeli intelligence and American intelligence and French intelligence, but the only one you’re not allowed to talk about is Israeli intelligence. “But it seemed true to me, and I had done some work on that. I knew a bunch of people pretty close to that story. So I thought that. And I said that to Charlie, and I said, but I’m not going to say that because I don’t want to make your donors mad. I know it’s just going to be like an endless flurry of texts telling you to stop or you’re going to lose a bunch of funding. “And he looked at me, I’ll never forget it, and said, ‘Go all the way. Do it. Go all the way.’ I said, man, I. You know, a lot of things I can talk about. I don’t need to talk about that. And he said, ‘Do it.’”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

171,481 views • 11 months ago

JD Vance goes off script at the Ole Miss TPUSA event, choosing to speak from the heart instead. “I got this whole speech written and I’m not going to deliver any of what I had written, I’m just going to speak from the heart because that’s what Charlie would so often do.” Vance went on to deliver an electric address, closing with a powerful message that brought the crowd to their feet: “He was a person who particularly to the young people of this country, to all of you, he had the very best advice. And I think that is the most important way for me to honor Charlie, which is to repeat that advice.” “Charlie wanted all of you, whatever life path you chose, whatever career you chose, whatever you ultimately did for a living, Charlie wanted you more than anything to invest in the things that were worth having, to build a life that was worth building.” “And that started, the most important advice he ever gave you was fall in love, get married, and start a family.” “And I can’t honor Charlie without repeating that most important advice.”
2:08

JD Vance goes off script at the Ole Miss TPUSA event, choosing to speak from the heart instead. “I got this whole speech written and I’m not going to deliver any of what I had written, I’m just going to speak from the heart because that’s what Charlie would so often do.” Vance went on to deliver an electric address, closing with a powerful message that brought the crowd to their feet: “He was a person who particularly to the young people of this country, to all of you, he had the very best advice. And I think that is the most important way for me to honor Charlie, which is to repeat that advice.” “Charlie wanted all of you, whatever life path you chose, whatever career you chose, whatever you ultimately did for a living, Charlie wanted you more than anything to invest in the things that were worth having, to build a life that was worth building.” “And that started, the most important advice he ever gave you was fall in love, get married, and start a family.” “And I can’t honor Charlie without repeating that most important advice.”

Overton

147,775 views • 10 months ago

MORE OF THIS, PLEASE: Important comments from CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss to colleague Vladimir Duthiers about having conversations with those we disagree with, even if you may think someone is controversial and wrong... CBS’s Vladimir Duthiers: “So, Bari, when I introduced you to the audience, you said something incredibly powerful. We have to get to a place in this country where we can have discussions with people we vehemently disagree with. Charlie Kirk was controversial in his life. Some of his critics called his organization racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic. Which you asked Erika about and I want to play a little bit of that for our viewers.” [Town Hall clip] Duthiers: “So, Bari, what do you say to those who argue it’s harmful to platform a guy like Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA and even his widow, even though she’s grieving some critics have addressed that with you?” Bari Weiss: “Yeah, I mean I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that we shouldn’t be able to speak across divides. That doesn’t mean that there are not lines. The question, of course, is whether or not Charlie Kirk crossed those lines and in my view, you hear me quote many of the controversial things he said — needless to say, there are many things Charlie Kirk said in his life that I vehemently disagree with, but, to me, that’s not the point. The point is that we are walking into an abyss as a country if we accept the idea that words are violence, but violence, if directed at the right targets, is acceptable. I fundamentally reject that world view. The entire point of our democracy, the whole premise of it as we’re entering our 250th year is that we solve our problems by persuasion. We solve our problems by talking to one another. We don’t solve our problems by shooting one another in the neck as happened that day at that Utah college and so, to me ,especially as we’re living in a world where you can live next door to someone and if you have different things on your social media feed, you can live in a different reality, and so, the point of this conversation, even if it makes some people uncomfortable, even if they disagree with something they heard on stage, I disagreed with some I heard on stage. The point, that’s the whole nature of the democratic process and this conversation and this whole series that we’re going to be announcing in the coming days, the point is to revive that in a moment this country needs it. More thank ever.”
4:28

MORE OF THIS, PLEASE: Important comments from CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss to colleague Vladimir Duthiers about having conversations with those we disagree with, even if you may think someone is controversial and wrong... CBS’s Vladimir Duthiers: “So, Bari, when I introduced you to the audience, you said something incredibly powerful. We have to get to a place in this country where we can have discussions with people we vehemently disagree with. Charlie Kirk was controversial in his life. Some of his critics called his organization racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic. Which you asked Erika about and I want to play a little bit of that for our viewers.” [Town Hall clip] Duthiers: “So, Bari, what do you say to those who argue it’s harmful to platform a guy like Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA and even his widow, even though she’s grieving some critics have addressed that with you?” Bari Weiss: “Yeah, I mean I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that we shouldn’t be able to speak across divides. That doesn’t mean that there are not lines. The question, of course, is whether or not Charlie Kirk crossed those lines and in my view, you hear me quote many of the controversial things he said — needless to say, there are many things Charlie Kirk said in his life that I vehemently disagree with, but, to me, that’s not the point. The point is that we are walking into an abyss as a country if we accept the idea that words are violence, but violence, if directed at the right targets, is acceptable. I fundamentally reject that world view. The entire point of our democracy, the whole premise of it as we’re entering our 250th year is that we solve our problems by persuasion. We solve our problems by talking to one another. We don’t solve our problems by shooting one another in the neck as happened that day at that Utah college and so, to me ,especially as we’re living in a world where you can live next door to someone and if you have different things on your social media feed, you can live in a different reality, and so, the point of this conversation, even if it makes some people uncomfortable, even if they disagree with something they heard on stage, I disagreed with some I heard on stage. The point, that’s the whole nature of the democratic process and this conversation and this whole series that we’re going to be announcing in the coming days, the point is to revive that in a moment this country needs it. More thank ever.”

Curtis Houck

257,495 views • 8 months ago

Neo-Nazis and various other types of Jew haters — many of whom are Candace Owens fans — have been pushing this conspiracy that Erika Kirk was operating as an agent for the Jews/Israelis and that she participated in a conspiracy to assassinate her husband. One of the ways they push this is by weaponizing this clip of Erika saying that Charlie would say “Shabbat Shalom” before turning off his phone for the Sabbath. But if you watch to the end, you’ll see clips I added where Charlie uses the word “Shabbat” himself many times. Charlie also regularly referred to it as the “Jewish Sabbath.” Important to note: the clips at the beginning are just two examples of many, but even these two clips on their own have been viewed many millions of times.
1:50

Neo-Nazis and various other types of Jew haters — many of whom are Candace Owens fans — have been pushing this conspiracy that Erika Kirk was operating as an agent for the Jews/Israelis and that she participated in a conspiracy to assassinate her husband. One of the ways they push this is by weaponizing this clip of Erika saying that Charlie would say “Shabbat Shalom” before turning off his phone for the Sabbath. But if you watch to the end, you’ll see clips I added where Charlie uses the word “Shabbat” himself many times. Charlie also regularly referred to it as the “Jewish Sabbath.” Important to note: the clips at the beginning are just two examples of many, but even these two clips on their own have been viewed many millions of times.

Yashar Ali 🐘

128,518 views • 8 months ago

This clip with Bill O’Reilly is important. It lays out a few key things that most people don’t know or are overlooking: -the U.S. destroyed only 75% of Iran’s nuclear capacity in June -the threat level in Iran changed, Trump got that intel -then he got intel that all the government leaders were going to be in the same place at the same time -this was on the heels of weeks of negotiations where the Iranians basically said, “f*ck you, we’re not stopping” -O’Reilly spoke to the president privately one week before the strikes, and Trump’s mind was still very much on deal making. He didn’t want to strike unless he absolutely had to. You can disagree with all of this, and you think it’s foolish, but it’s important to not completely ignore facts and information just because they don’t hear it fit your conspiracy theories.
3:55

This clip with Bill O’Reilly is important. It lays out a few key things that most people don’t know or are overlooking: -the U.S. destroyed only 75% of Iran’s nuclear capacity in June -the threat level in Iran changed, Trump got that intel -then he got intel that all the government leaders were going to be in the same place at the same time -this was on the heels of weeks of negotiations where the Iranians basically said, “f*ck you, we’re not stopping” -O’Reilly spoke to the president privately one week before the strikes, and Trump’s mind was still very much on deal making. He didn’t want to strike unless he absolutely had to. You can disagree with all of this, and you think it’s foolish, but it’s important to not completely ignore facts and information just because they don’t hear it fit your conspiracy theories.

Natalie Jean Beisner

410,725 views • 5 months ago

Bomani Jones says people who never watched Michael Jordan play live can’t change his mind in the GOAT debate with LeBron James “I was there.” “You can’t replicate the fact that I was there.” “I saw it in real time.” “It’s not your fault that you can’t replicate it.” “Having been there for Jordan and having been here for LeBron…” “Michael Jordan, to me, is the superior player.” “He was the more significant figure.” “If you think you’re right, that’s cool.” “You’re not changing my mind about this.” “There is no angle that you have that I will not think that I have thought of.” “What you don’t have is what I need you to have.” “I need you to have been here for this.” “You just can’t.” “If you’re right, you’re just gonna have to be satisfied that you’re right.” “I’m not trying to hear it.”
1:19

Bomani Jones says people who never watched Michael Jordan play live can’t change his mind in the GOAT debate with LeBron James “I was there.” “You can’t replicate the fact that I was there.” “I saw it in real time.” “It’s not your fault that you can’t replicate it.” “Having been there for Jordan and having been here for LeBron…” “Michael Jordan, to me, is the superior player.” “He was the more significant figure.” “If you think you’re right, that’s cool.” “You’re not changing my mind about this.” “There is no angle that you have that I will not think that I have thought of.” “What you don’t have is what I need you to have.” “I need you to have been here for this.” “You just can’t.” “If you’re right, you’re just gonna have to be satisfied that you’re right.” “I’m not trying to hear it.”

Isaac Bassey

506,073 views • 1 month ago

Charlie Kirk: “Christianity is the greatest ethic that humanity has ever had to live under…These are beautiful teachings—in fact, they’re so beautiful that you think they’re common but they’re not. And if you believe Christianity shouldn’t be in government, you’re going to need to replace it with something. And what will that something be?” Watch this all the way through. Charlie is so gracious and not forceful. He wasn’t trying to force Jesus on anyone because—as he said—that’s not love. You can’t be saved by faith through force. There are so many points where I would’ve gotten upset at the student and let him have it—particularly when he was talking about women dying because they can’t get abortions.” But Charlie didn’t pick a fight or get angry or show off or do a gotcha. He just conversed. And he was murdered for it. And people celebrate it—and smear him as a man who (among other things) wanted to force his faith on you, when it simply isn’t true.
7:22

Charlie Kirk: “Christianity is the greatest ethic that humanity has ever had to live under…These are beautiful teachings—in fact, they’re so beautiful that you think they’re common but they’re not. And if you believe Christianity shouldn’t be in government, you’re going to need to replace it with something. And what will that something be?” Watch this all the way through. Charlie is so gracious and not forceful. He wasn’t trying to force Jesus on anyone because—as he said—that’s not love. You can’t be saved by faith through force. There are so many points where I would’ve gotten upset at the student and let him have it—particularly when he was talking about women dying because they can’t get abortions.” But Charlie didn’t pick a fight or get angry or show off or do a gotcha. He just conversed. And he was murdered for it. And people celebrate it—and smear him as a man who (among other things) wanted to force his faith on you, when it simply isn’t true.

Natalie Jean Beisner

30,944 views • 11 months ago

Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin are referring to Charlie Kirk and TP USA. "Just because someone votes Republican does not mean they need to be the preacher at the front of the church. They are not the one to be leading the movement" Charlie was against bombing Iran and wanted the release of the Epstein files. Remember Laura Loomer posting that Charlie was stabbing Trump in the back? . This was the day before he was assassinated, and the day after Charlie had Ben on his show. Charlie was one of Israel's greatest supporters, but it still wasn't enough in their eyes.
2:12

Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin are referring to Charlie Kirk and TP USA. "Just because someone votes Republican does not mean they need to be the preacher at the front of the church. They are not the one to be leading the movement" Charlie was against bombing Iran and wanted the release of the Epstein files. Remember Laura Loomer posting that Charlie was stabbing Trump in the back? . This was the day before he was assassinated, and the day after Charlie had Ben on his show. Charlie was one of Israel's greatest supporters, but it still wasn't enough in their eyes.

Knoxie

109,220 views • 11 months ago

🔥 LIES: Your favorite Charlie Kirk investigators are LYING to you... They DO NOT want to tell you: - I was the FIRST to bring you the Birds of Prey platform in Charlie Kirk: Operation 322 PART IV back in 2025. - I was the FIRST to discover, and still the only, to show you the HOLE in the middle of Charlie Kirk's shirt. I've PROVEN BOTH SHOTS THAT ASSASSINATED CHARLIE KIRK in a RITUALIZED MILITARY OPERATION, since September 2025. 🧾 MOST of your favorite Charlie Kirk investigators know exactly who I am, but REFUSE to engage with me!! Read That Again... 🔑 Some of the top people that we all engage with daily have followed me and unfollowed me. Why? Because they're SCARED!! The know the TRUTH. 🔑 They're trying to sell you the most watered down version of the Israeli Elbit Systems Birds of Prey drones possible, KNOWING THAT I'M THE ONLY INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST WHO HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT BIRDS OF PREY SINCE 2025. I'm not going to let that happen! And neither are YOU! For those of you who have championed the Charlie Kirk: Operation 322 series, THIS IS OUR MOMENT... If you hear anyone mentioning Birds of Prey drones, and they haven't mentioned my name yet, you should start asking A LOT OF QUESTIONS... The first question you should ask is, "What about the other shot?" The next question you should ask is, "Why are you ducking We Are Not Going To Mars?" The last question you should ask is, "Why are you so scared of the truth?" If you've invested the thousands of hours that I've invested in this consistently since the beginning, then you would understand the ANGER that I feel, and the disrespect that is on display as clear as day. 🔑 I'm so happy I haven't dropped Charlie Kirk: Operation 322 PART VI yet... Now I have the "INSPIRATION" for the end of the video. I didn't want to have to be the bad guy... But I can't lie, I do not mind being the villain in this story, as long as the TRUTH is what's recognized in the end. I'm a super grown man (old head) who does not care about silly labels or bad press. I only care about the truth being recognized, and JUSTICE being served. 🔑 Charlie Kirk was assassinated in front of the world, and these people are treating it like they don't have the time to sit down and do a frame-by-frame analysis based on my findings... But you have the time to keep doing all this other content?! Bet. These people are playing in our faces!! They will NEVER admit the two shots that assassinated Charlie Kirk at the same time. Because then that would force them to admit that THEY'VE KNOWN ABOUT ME ALL ALONG... 📢 They will NEVER admit that they've seen my viral infrared beam on the back right portion of Charlie's head video; coincidentally THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE! 🔑 What you're about to get from some of these lying so-called investigators is a bunch of watered down, super basic, long drawn-out content that does not get the public any results... Do not be DECEIVED by some the loudest voices in the room right now. 📰 If they are NOT telling you about BOTH SHOTS that impacted Charlie Kirk's body, and my work in finding and proving those shots over the last year, it is a disrespect to independent journalism itself. And now, I found their weak spot... 🔑 Not only will they not do the frame-by-frame analysis and include all the data that I've found, but they refuse to cover the obvious military operation that is happening IN THE CROWD; on the LEFT SIDE of Charlie. 🕵🏾‍♂️🗃️🧾 But, I will!! CKO322 PART VI isn't about to just expose the obvious investigative deficiencies of some of these so-called independent journalists, but also the fact that people are flat out LYING & STEALING in this space. People that I thought were honorable, and exhibited integrity, are turning out to be absolute snakes that must be addressed. I don't know who these people thought I was, but they're about to learn who I really am... Their LIES will not survive the TRUTH. Christ Is King 👑
5:11

🔥 LIES: Your favorite Charlie Kirk investigators are LYING to you... They DO NOT want to tell you: - I was the FIRST to bring you the Birds of Prey platform in Charlie Kirk: Operation 322 PART IV back in 2025. - I was the FIRST to discover, and still the only, to show you the HOLE in the middle of Charlie Kirk's shirt. I've PROVEN BOTH SHOTS THAT ASSASSINATED CHARLIE KIRK in a RITUALIZED MILITARY OPERATION, since September 2025. 🧾 MOST of your favorite Charlie Kirk investigators know exactly who I am, but REFUSE to engage with me!! Read That Again... 🔑 Some of the top people that we all engage with daily have followed me and unfollowed me. Why? Because they're SCARED!! The know the TRUTH. 🔑 They're trying to sell you the most watered down version of the Israeli Elbit Systems Birds of Prey drones possible, KNOWING THAT I'M THE ONLY INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST WHO HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT BIRDS OF PREY SINCE 2025. I'm not going to let that happen! And neither are YOU! For those of you who have championed the Charlie Kirk: Operation 322 series, THIS IS OUR MOMENT... If you hear anyone mentioning Birds of Prey drones, and they haven't mentioned my name yet, you should start asking A LOT OF QUESTIONS... The first question you should ask is, "What about the other shot?" The next question you should ask is, "Why are you ducking We Are Not Going To Mars?" The last question you should ask is, "Why are you so scared of the truth?" If you've invested the thousands of hours that I've invested in this consistently since the beginning, then you would understand the ANGER that I feel, and the disrespect that is on display as clear as day. 🔑 I'm so happy I haven't dropped Charlie Kirk: Operation 322 PART VI yet... Now I have the "INSPIRATION" for the end of the video. I didn't want to have to be the bad guy... But I can't lie, I do not mind being the villain in this story, as long as the TRUTH is what's recognized in the end. I'm a super grown man (old head) who does not care about silly labels or bad press. I only care about the truth being recognized, and JUSTICE being served. 🔑 Charlie Kirk was assassinated in front of the world, and these people are treating it like they don't have the time to sit down and do a frame-by-frame analysis based on my findings... But you have the time to keep doing all this other content?! Bet. These people are playing in our faces!! They will NEVER admit the two shots that assassinated Charlie Kirk at the same time. Because then that would force them to admit that THEY'VE KNOWN ABOUT ME ALL ALONG... 📢 They will NEVER admit that they've seen my viral infrared beam on the back right portion of Charlie's head video; coincidentally THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE! 🔑 What you're about to get from some of these lying so-called investigators is a bunch of watered down, super basic, long drawn-out content that does not get the public any results... Do not be DECEIVED by some the loudest voices in the room right now. 📰 If they are NOT telling you about BOTH SHOTS that impacted Charlie Kirk's body, and my work in finding and proving those shots over the last year, it is a disrespect to independent journalism itself. And now, I found their weak spot... 🔑 Not only will they not do the frame-by-frame analysis and include all the data that I've found, but they refuse to cover the obvious military operation that is happening IN THE CROWD; on the LEFT SIDE of Charlie. 🕵🏾‍♂️🗃️🧾 But, I will!! CKO322 PART VI isn't about to just expose the obvious investigative deficiencies of some of these so-called independent journalists, but also the fact that people are flat out LYING & STEALING in this space. People that I thought were honorable, and exhibited integrity, are turning out to be absolute snakes that must be addressed. I don't know who these people thought I was, but they're about to learn who I really am... Their LIES will not survive the TRUTH. Christ Is King 👑

WeAreNotGoingToMars

111,279 views • 7 days ago

ANDREW: “You’ve stated multiple times that you believe Israel is involved in the death of Charlie Kirk... Do you have any positive evidence that Israel killed Charlie Kirk?” CANDACE: “I couldn’t say Israel was on the ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk. We’re trying to establish a motive. I don’t believe Tyler Robinson and his trans-furry is a convincing motive. Lance testified he never spoke about politics or LGBTQ issues. If he was into LGBTQ issues, he wouldn’t stop and eat at Chick-fil-A before killing Charlie.” ANDREW: “Yeah, but do you have positive evidence?” CANDACE: “I’m answering the question as I feel like I want to answer it.” ANDREW: “But the question I’m asking you about is positive evidence.” CANDACE: “Charlie’s perspectives were changing on Israel. And he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government to constantly fight their wars, but also on his organization personally. If people had come out and been honest about that, rather than rabidly claiming he never flinched and everybody’s lying and this is not true, you would probably have people who just go, ‘Eh, that’s life. People change their opinions.’” ANDREW: “So, other than intuition and how you feel about things, do you have any evidence that Israel was involved in killing Charlie Kirk?” CANDACE: “I have already said, and if you’re watching my show, you know the context of what I said. This is the general sense of why people think Israel’s involved. Joe Kent, who I think would have the right to assert it, noted that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground that day. I think most people would like to probe that. Now, it could be maybe they were students, you know, and they were Israeli students in Utah that day. But we’d like to probe that narrative because what we’ve seen afterward, coming from the Israeli government, the Israeli prime minister kind of denying that he did it, which wasn’t really necessary, the phone call that happened around August 5th in the Hamptons, and again, the almost desperate lies about Charlie’s shifting position on Israel, lead us to believe that there could be an Israel angle on this. But we can’t say for certainty that Israel called the shot.” ANDREW: “So you would say there’s no positive evidence? Like material evidence?” CANDACE: “Positive, negative, however you want to say it. What we’ve said on our show is what we said. This feels like a conspiracy building. There’s no reason to lie about these things, and yet people are lying. Bibi ain’t acting right. The Hamptons thing was weird. And the way they tried to shove the Israel narrative down our throat immediately. It doesn't feel right, so...” Candace Owens Andrew Wilson
3:47

ANDREW: “You’ve stated multiple times that you believe Israel is involved in the death of Charlie Kirk... Do you have any positive evidence that Israel killed Charlie Kirk?” CANDACE: “I couldn’t say Israel was on the ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk. We’re trying to establish a motive. I don’t believe Tyler Robinson and his trans-furry is a convincing motive. Lance testified he never spoke about politics or LGBTQ issues. If he was into LGBTQ issues, he wouldn’t stop and eat at Chick-fil-A before killing Charlie.” ANDREW: “Yeah, but do you have positive evidence?” CANDACE: “I’m answering the question as I feel like I want to answer it.” ANDREW: “But the question I’m asking you about is positive evidence.” CANDACE: “Charlie’s perspectives were changing on Israel. And he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government to constantly fight their wars, but also on his organization personally. If people had come out and been honest about that, rather than rabidly claiming he never flinched and everybody’s lying and this is not true, you would probably have people who just go, ‘Eh, that’s life. People change their opinions.’” ANDREW: “So, other than intuition and how you feel about things, do you have any evidence that Israel was involved in killing Charlie Kirk?” CANDACE: “I have already said, and if you’re watching my show, you know the context of what I said. This is the general sense of why people think Israel’s involved. Joe Kent, who I think would have the right to assert it, noted that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground that day. I think most people would like to probe that. Now, it could be maybe they were students, you know, and they were Israeli students in Utah that day. But we’d like to probe that narrative because what we’ve seen afterward, coming from the Israeli government, the Israeli prime minister kind of denying that he did it, which wasn’t really necessary, the phone call that happened around August 5th in the Hamptons, and again, the almost desperate lies about Charlie’s shifting position on Israel, lead us to believe that there could be an Israel angle on this. But we can’t say for certainty that Israel called the shot.” ANDREW: “So you would say there’s no positive evidence? Like material evidence?” CANDACE: “Positive, negative, however you want to say it. What we’ve said on our show is what we said. This feels like a conspiracy building. There’s no reason to lie about these things, and yet people are lying. Bibi ain’t acting right. The Hamptons thing was weird. And the way they tried to shove the Israel narrative down our throat immediately. It doesn't feel right, so...” Candace Owens Andrew Wilson

KanekoaTheGreat

118,254 views • 13 days ago

What does Charlie Kirk want us to do next? His Executive Producer Andrew Kolvet says it best: Save the country for the kids. "Charlie was not a revolutionary. Charlie was an anti-revolutionary. He was a counter-revolutionary. He believed in the founder's vision of this country. And he does not want to see it in the rage that we're all feeling be misdirected to evil." "He would want us to double down and to not see this country get ripped apart. Yes. But to be brought together. And, yeah, that sometimes means the evildoers need to be brought to justice. We need to do it the right way."
2:35

What does Charlie Kirk want us to do next? His Executive Producer Andrew Kolvet says it best: Save the country for the kids. "Charlie was not a revolutionary. Charlie was an anti-revolutionary. He was a counter-revolutionary. He believed in the founder's vision of this country. And he does not want to see it in the rage that we're all feeling be misdirected to evil." "He would want us to double down and to not see this country get ripped apart. Yes. But to be brought together. And, yeah, that sometimes means the evildoers need to be brought to justice. We need to do it the right way."

Benny Johnson

641,064 views • 11 months ago

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”
3:10

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 views • 8 months ago

Please watch this video carefully. The sister in question (bless her) asks a question, it was answered. Then she asks a follow up question which is meant to make the answer to the first question practical. That question was not answered, because people don’t like to accept the implication of the Hypergrace doctrine. If once saved forever saved is true then I’m saved no matter what I do afterwards. That’s the implication. You can advise me on what to do later but you have to accept the implication of once saved forever saved before giving that advice. You either accept it or not. And if you don’t accept it then you don’t believe once saved forever saved. The Akure heretic has no problem accepting this and that’s why even amongst Hypergrace teachers he doesn’t have a good PR. Now at the beginning I said to watch this video carefully, do you notice what is being said here? Is this something that someone like let’s say R. C. Sproul will refute?
2:17

Please watch this video carefully. The sister in question (bless her) asks a question, it was answered. Then she asks a follow up question which is meant to make the answer to the first question practical. That question was not answered, because people don’t like to accept the implication of the Hypergrace doctrine. If once saved forever saved is true then I’m saved no matter what I do afterwards. That’s the implication. You can advise me on what to do later but you have to accept the implication of once saved forever saved before giving that advice. You either accept it or not. And if you don’t accept it then you don’t believe once saved forever saved. The Akure heretic has no problem accepting this and that’s why even amongst Hypergrace teachers he doesn’t have a good PR. Now at the beginning I said to watch this video carefully, do you notice what is being said here? Is this something that someone like let’s say R. C. Sproul will refute?

Rasine Irem

15,067 views • 1 month ago

Is this just a good faith question? Or is this a clear accusation? “A decision was made to murder Charlie… a decision that had to be approved by Charlie’s friends”. Who made it? Where’s the evidence? Friends = TPUSA? A reasonable person would assume that. Where’s the evidence that you have that brought you to this conclusion? This whole “she’s not accusing anyone and just asking questions” schtick is dishonest and it insults everyone’s intelligence. She can ask questions, but you can’t question her. That’s not how this works.
0:21

Is this just a good faith question? Or is this a clear accusation? “A decision was made to murder Charlie… a decision that had to be approved by Charlie’s friends”. Who made it? Where’s the evidence? Friends = TPUSA? A reasonable person would assume that. Where’s the evidence that you have that brought you to this conclusion? This whole “she’s not accusing anyone and just asking questions” schtick is dishonest and it insults everyone’s intelligence. She can ask questions, but you can’t question her. That’s not how this works.

Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton

22,997 views • 9 months ago