Thread: Charlie Kirk Shot At Utah Event - Confirmed Dead (Video)

Unraveling the web of deception: Charlie Kirk’s assassin and the FBI’s false flag

09/15/2025 // Finn Heartley // 1.1K Views

Tags: assassination, chaos, Charlie Kirk, Collapse, cuture wars, Dangerous, FBI, free speech, gun violence, left cult, manhunt, national security, national tragedy, political violence, progress, real investigations, shooting, shootings, violence

• Official Narrative Collapses: Authorities arrested Tyler as the alleged shooter, but the story lacks visual evidence, bullet recovery, and credible logistics—raising suspicions of a cover-up or staged event.
• False Flag Indicators: The assassination bears hallmarks of a false flag, including FBI deception history, decoy operatives, a vanished private jet, and inexplicable security failures similar to Trump’s attempted assassination.
• Motives and Beneficiaries: Israel, the CIA, domestic extremists, or globalists may be behind Kirk’s killing due to his anti-globalist stance, with potential aims to incite violence or justify authoritarian policies.
• Orchestrated Chaos: The event fits a pattern of destabilization—media manipulation, eroding public trust, and AI-driven job loss—to pave the way for draconian "solutions" like martial law or digital ID mandates.
• Demand Transparency: The inconsistencies demand independent investigation. Americans must reject official narratives, prepare for deeper conspiracies, and resist complacency in the face of escalating tyranny.

The Official Narrative Crumbles Under Scrutiny

The assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk has sent shockwaves through America, raising urgent questions about who was truly behind the attack. While authorities swiftly arrested an alleged shooter—identified as Tyler—the official narrative is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright absurdities that suggest a deeper conspiracy at play.
A Patsy or the Real Shooter?

The government’s version of events strains credulity:

• No Visual Evidence: Despite ubiquitous surveillance cameras, there is no footage of Tyler carrying a rifle, assembling it on a rooftop, or fleeing the scene.
• Impossible Logistics: Officials claim Tyler disassembled and reassembled a precision rifle multiple times—a process requiring specialized tools—while simultaneously changing clothes mid-operation.
• No Recovered Bullet: Despite claims of a sniper shot, no bullet has been recovered, making forensic verification impossible. Ballistics matching, often touted as definitive proof, is itself a Hollywood myth—bullets cannot be conclusively linked to a specific firearm.
• Destroyed Crime Scene: Kirk’s security team hastily dismantled the scene, removing cameras and banners that could have provided critical evidence.

False Flag Hallmarks

The suspicious circumstances surrounding Kirk’s assassination bear the hallmarks of a false flag operation:

1. Government Deception: The FBI and other agencies have a documented history of staging or enabling attacks to justify crackdowns on civil liberties (e.g., Oklahoma City, 9/11).
2. Decoys and Misdirection: Reports indicate multiple "decoy" individuals were present, suggesting a coordinated effort to mislead investigators.
3. Private Jet Anomalies: A private jet linked to the event mysteriously disappeared from public tracking systems, raising questions about elite involvement.
4. Security Failures: Despite heightened tensions, Kirk’s security detail failed to detect or neutralize the threat, reminiscent of the Secret Service’s inexplicable lapses during the Trump assassination attempt.

Who Benefits?

While Israel—a nation infamous for its assassination programs—remains a prime suspect due to Kirk’s criticism of Israeli policies, other possibilities loom:

• The CIA or Deep State: Kirk’s vocal opposition to globalist agendas made him a target. His assassination could serve as a warning to dissenters.
• Domestic Left-Wing Extremists: Radicalized individuals, many brain-damaged by COVID vaccines (which impair cognitive function), have celebrated Kirk’s death, signaling a dangerous escalation in political violence.
• Fabricated Crisis: The event could be engineered to justify martial law, digital ID mandates, or further censorship under the guise of "preventing extremism."

The Bigger Picture: A Controlled Collapse

This assassination fits a pattern of orchestrated chaos designed to destabilize America:

• Media Manipulation: Corporate press outlets parrot government narratives while suppressing alternative investigations.
• Erosion of Trust: Each suspicious event deepens public skepticism, accelerating societal breakdown.
• AI and Automation: As human jobs vanish, unrest grows—perfect conditions for authoritarian "solutions."

Conclusion: Demand the Truth

The Charlie Kirk assassination reeks of deception. Whether Tyler is a patsy or part of a larger scheme, one thing is clear: the official story doesn’t add up.
Americans must reject complacency, demand transparency, and prepare for the possibility that this was not just a lone gunman—but a staged event in the globalists’ war on freedom.
Stay vigilant. Question everything. The truth is out there—but those in power don’t want you to find it.
Watch the Sep. 15 episode of "Brighteon Broadcast News" as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, talks about how the “assassin” of Charlie Kirk is a convenient patsy.

This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:

The assassination of Charlie Kirk: A grave blow to free speech in America
MANHUNT: FBI releases images of a suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, rifle recovered
APPREHENDED: Family turns in suspect in political assassination of activist Charlie Kirk
Sources include:
Brighteon.com

Unraveling the web of deception: Charlie Kirk’s assassin and the FBI’s false flag – NaturalNews.com

The rise of CIVIL TERRORISM: Left-wing militancy and the assassination of Charlie Kirk demand greater counter-sniper security at public events

Thread: The rise of CIVIL TERRORISM: Left-wing militancy and the assassination of Charlie Kir

New SG Anon Analyzes the Charlie Kirk Assassination - Unanswered Questions

New SG Anon Analyzes the Charlie Kirk Assassination - Unanswered Questions

Monday, September 15, 2025 20:58

Unanswered Questions | SG Anon Analyzes the Charlie Kirk Assassination



777

Durham, NC Police Chief Faces “Scrutiny” Over Charlie Kirk Post She Deleted

By William Teach September 16, 2025 – 10:30 am

Republican police officers have been cancelled for less. There was the officer with cancer who fund-raised with a modified Thin Blue Line shirt. One hospital employee was butthurt. There was the Plain View Project which specifically targeted police officers who made Wrongthink posts, which resulted in, for instance, 200 Philly officers being disciplined. And so many other examples. Here’s an officer who was fired for making terrible remarks about a woman’s death. Is that cancel culture, or, just someone who really shouldn’t be in the position? Because some things are ridiculous cancel culture, and some are being responsible. Like this

Durham police chief faces scrutiny for deleted post about Charlie Kirk
Durham Police Chief Patrice Andrews is receiving scrutiny for social media comments she made about the late Charlie Kirk.
A 22-year-old man is accused of shooting and killing Kirk on Wednesday at a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University.
In a now-deleted Facebook post on her personal page, Andrews said she’s outraged by people she knows who still support Kirk.
“I won’t stop being outraged at the way this man is being honored by people that I thought I knew,” Andrews wrote in the deleted post. “This man, who disguised himself as a Christian, shamed Black women like me, believed that gun violence was necessary to preserve the 2nd amendment, and created a culture of divisiveness through hate speech.”

Is that too bad? Should the Chief Of Police in a decent sized city be making political comments, even on her personal Facebook, about someone who was assassinated? Does it entice others to take matters into their own hands because the Chief made those comments?

Also, WRAL News asked (Durham mayor Leonardo) Williams if the city’s chief of police should make statements like she did on social media.
“That’s the most interesting question right now, because we cannot be selective on who gets to exercise the First Amendment,” Williams said. “I have been in the hot seat myself several times, speaking of my own capacity.
“I will say that we as public servants, we do have to be aware of the impact of our verbiage, whether it’s in our personal capacity or not.”

The 1st does not stop people from responding, and, it is the Government which can pass no law restricting it. Article I (Declaration Of Rights) of the NC Constitution states

Sec. 14. Freedom of speech and press.
Freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall never be restrained, but every person shall be held responsible for their abuse.

It’s actually interesting, because “shall never be restrained” but “be held responsible”? By whom? Does the government have that authority in NC? Or, simply referring to the citizens? You’re welcome to say what you want, but, there can be consequences. As for “verbiage”, if it was acceptable then why delete it?

WRAL News obtained a copy of Durham Police Department’s social media policy.
“Employees should not assume that content on social media is private,” the policy states. “Members should monitor content on their social networking sites with the expectation that the information may at some point be viewed by City officials, supervisors, staff and co-workers, as well as members of the public, such as the media, defense counsel, criminal suspects and defendants.
“Members should consider the possible adverse consequences that social media content may have on their professional activities, such as future employment opportunities, credibility as a witness, and public as well as private reputation. Members are also cautioned to carefully consider the impact that social media content may have on their personal safety and the safety of co-workers.”

Perhaps the police chief should have considered this beforehand, because I bet she would discipline up to termination someone who wrote something negative about a Democrat murdered. How do you trust a police chief who has no problem showing her political bias?
Realistically, nothing will happen to her: Durham is a deep blue city. And, I’ve also said I hate cancel culture, but, that’s really more about going after minor things, for Wrongthink. There is a point where what people say or do is no longer cancelling, but, the reality of the position.

Durham, NC Police Chief Faces “Scrutiny” Over Charlie Kirk Post She Deleted » Pirate's Cove

Is a CIVIL WAR brewing in America?



Summary:
We are discussing the values and morals in the United States in this video.

Credits:
Channel: Deep River Farm
Published: 9/15/25
19:14 minutes

Candace Owens reveals Charlie Kirk’s secret struggle with Israel’s pressure campaign

09/16/2025 // Lance D Johnson // 590 Views

Tags: assassination rumors, Bill Ackman, blackmail allegations, Candace Owens, Catholic conversion, Censorship, Charlie Kirk, conservative movement, conspiracy, deep state, evangelical Zionism, free speech, freedom, Gaza conflict, Hamptons meeting, Israel Lobby, Megyn Kelly, Netanyahu, political pressure, pro-Israel donors, student protests, TPUSA, Tucker Carlson, Tyranny, zionism



Have you ever lost someone close to you, someone who shared their heart with you in their final days, someone who entrusted you with important information and personal insight? After they suddenly pass, you feel inclined to share their heart and intentions with other people, especially when others misconstrue who that person was, what they were thinking, what they believed. That’s the position Candace Owens finds herself in now—grieving her friend Charlie Kirk while fighting to correct the record about his final days. When Israel’s current leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke to Fox News about Kirk’s position on Israel just a day after his sudden death, it did not settle right with some of Kirk’s closest friends—most notably Owens, who knew the truth about his shifting beliefs and the pressure he was under from billionaires and the leaders of foreign governments (Netanyahu) in his final days of life.Key points:

• Candace Owens claims Charlie Kirk was pressured by billionaire donors and foreign governments to align with pro-Israel narratives before his death.
• Owens alleges Kirk was offered large sums of money to conform, while also facing threats and intimidation.
• Netanyahu publicly commented on Kirk’s views, but Owens demands transparency, including the release of a private letter Kirk sent to the Israeli leader.
• Kirk was reportedly reconsidering his stance on Israel, concerned about free speech restrictions under antisemitism laws.
• Owens insists this isn’t about conspiracy theories or blaming anyone for assassinating Charlie Kirk, but about honoring Kirk’s legacy and exposing the pressures he faced.

A friend’s courageous stand

As a close friend to Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens knew important details about his whereabouts and mindset—details that are now being re-framed by figures like Netanyahu, who has sought media attention to shape a narrative about Kirk’s beliefs regarding Israel. But there’s more to the story, and others are speaking out. Owens is challenging Netanyahu to release the full letter Kirk sent him just months before his death, arguing that the public deserves to know the truth about his evolving perspective.
Let’s be clear: Owens isn’t accusing Netanyahu or Turning Point USA’s billionaire donors of orchestrating a grand conspiracy to assassinate Kirk. She’s simply trying to set the record straight on where her friend stood on these critical issues in the months leading up to his death. According to Owens, Kirk was changing his positions, opening up to new evidence about the Israeli government’s actions and growing concerned that antisemitism laws were becoming a threat to free speech in America. He believed these laws were backfiring, hurting Israel’s case rather than helping it.
Kirk’s shift wasn’t just ideological—it was personal. Owens has taken a bold step to clarify where her friend stood, and she’s calling on billionaire donors and even Netanyahu to be transparent about their communications with Kirk. This isn’t about assigning blame for his death; it’s about understanding the pressures he faced from foreign governments and wealthy influencers who wanted to control his organization’s messaging.
The cost of dissent when foreign governments and billionaires apply pressure

Kirk’s growing skepticism put him at odds with powerful forces. Owens has hinted that he was offered substantial financial incentives to fall in line, but he resisted. His defiance may have cost him dearly. The question now is whether Turning Point USA, the organization he built, will honor his legacy by fostering open debate—or whether it will continue to be a tool for outside interests.
This moment isn’t just about Kirk; it’s about the broader struggle for intellectual honesty in conservative circles. If a movement can’t tolerate questions about foreign influence, how can it claim to stand for freedom? Owens isn’t just mourning a friend—she’s fighting for the soul of a movement that seems increasingly willing to sacrifice principle for power.
Owen’s concerns are corroborated by other sources close to Charlie Kirk, who spoke with independent journalists at the GrayZone.
Among these concerns:

• A month prior to his assassination, Bill Ackman hosted a contentious meeting in the Hamptons where he and other pro-Israel figures confronted Charlie Kirk over his criticism of Israeli influence.
• Kirk left the meeting upset, allegedly feeling “blackmailed” and concerned about Israeli pressure on his organization.
• Ackman denied the claims, calling them “totally false,” but refused to provide evidence to back his denial.
• The meeting included influential pro-Israel operatives, some of whom later participated in Israeli-government-funded trips to Gaza.
• Kirk was reportedly considering converting to Catholicism, distancing himself from the evangelical Zionism that dominates conservative circles.
• Before his death, Kirk resisted offers from Netanyahu for funding and a meeting in Jerusalem.
• After Kirk’s death, Netanyahu publicly commented on it, framing his own narrative about Kirk, while not being transparent of forthright about their business interactions and conflicts of belief in Kirk’s final days.

Candace Owens is asking for transparency on these communications, which reveal the type and severity of pressure that Charlie Kirk was under in his final days. Imagine foreign governments, candidates for higher office, and billionaire funders all vying to control who you allow at your events and what topics are allowed to be discussed, while trying to impugn your character for speaking out on contentious topics…
Sources include:
X.com
TheGrayZone.com
Enoch, Brighteon.ai

Candace Owens reveals Charlie Kirk’s secret struggle with Israel’s pressure campaign – NaturalNews.com

The Hamptons showdown: How billionaire Bill Ackman’s Israel ‘intervention’ pushed Charlie Kirk to the edge of a Catholic conversion

09/16/2025 // Lance D Johnson // 440 Views

Tags: assassination rumors, Bill Ackman, blackmail allegations, Candace Owens, Catholic conversion, Charlie Kirk, conservative movement, deep state, evangelical Zionism, free speech, Gaza conflict, Hamptons meeting, Israel Lobby, Liberty, Megyn Kelly, Netanyahu, political pressure, pro-Israel donors, student protests, terrorism, TPUSA, Tucker Carlson, Tyranny, zionism



Imagine sitting across from a billionaire who holds the purse strings to your organization, your reputation, maybe even your safety. Now imagine he’s not just asking for your compliance—he’s demanding it, with a list of your supposed sins laid out like evidence in a trial. That’s the scene Charlie Kirk walked into in August in the Hamptons, where billionaire pro-Israel activist Bill Ackman convened what sources describe as an “intervention” to bully Kirk back into line.Journalists with Grayzone spoke with at least five inside sources close to Charlie Kirk. These sources provided new details on the type of pressure Kirk was receiving from billionaires, candidates for higher office, and the heads of foreign governments. In fact, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu had recently offered to organize a massive infusion of pro-Israel money into Turning Point USA, money and influence that Kirk refused. Kirk was also recently criticized for providing a platform for "anti-Semites" even though these speakers were bringing up valid points about the Israeli government. That said, let's be clear, NaturalNews is not outright accusing anyone of a conspiracy to assassinate Charlie Kirk; however, transparency regarding these issues is important for the future of Turning Point USA regarding Kirk's legacy and commitment, and the future of the movement.
Key points:

• Bill Ackman hosted a contentious meeting in the Hamptons where he and other pro-Israel figures confronted Charlie Kirk over his criticism of Israeli influence.
• Kirk left the meeting upset, allegedly feeling “blackmailed” and concerned about Israeli pressure on his organization.
• Ackman denied the claims, calling them “totally false,” but refused to provide evidence to back his denial.
• The meeting included influential pro-Israel operatives, some of whom later participated in Israeli-government-funded trips to Gaza.
• Kirk was reportedly considering converting to Catholicism, distancing himself from the evangelical Zionism that dominates conservative circles.
• Before his death, Kirk resisted offers from Netanyahu for funding and a meeting in Jerusalem.

A meeting that allegedly turned hostile

According to sources close to Kirk, on a sweltering August day in the Hamptons, Charlie Kirk walked into what he thought would be a strategy session about a New York mayoral candidate. Instead, according to five sources familiar with the event, he found himself ambushed. Bill Ackman, the hedge fund manager and staunch Israel advocate, had gathered a group of influencers—not for policy discussion, but for an intervention. The target? Kirk’s increasingly critical stance on Israel and his concerns about free speech with anti-semitism laws threatening dissent in America.
The confrontation quickly turned ugly. Ackman presented Kirk with a detailed list of his perceived offenses against Israel, from platforming critics at Turning Point USA events to questioning the U.S.-Israel relationship. An unknown British woman joined in, screaming at Kirk as the tension escalated. One attendee called the whole thing “a disaster.” Another said Kirk left feeling as though he’d been subjected to “blackmail.”
The pressure wasn’t just about ideology—it was about control. Ackman allegedly demanded Kirk rescind his invitation to Tucker Carlson for an upcoming TPUSA event. Carlson, a vocal critic of Israel’s influence, had become a liability in the eyes of pro-Israel donors. Kirk refused.
The breaking point

The Hamptons meeting wasn’t an isolated incident. For months, Kirk had been fielding angry calls and messages from pro-Israel donors, including Netanyahu himself, who reportedly offered to funnel massive amounts of money into TPUSA—if Kirk toed the line. According to a longtime friend, Kirk was “angry” and “frightened” by the intimidation campaign. In an August interview with Megyn Kelly, he vented about the relentless attacks on his character.
“It’s all of the sudden, ‘Oh, Charlie: he’s no longer with us.’ Wait a second—what does ‘with us’ mean, exactly? I’m an American, okay? I represent this country,” Kirk said. “The more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question… we start to say, ‘whoa, hold the boat here.’”
His defiance was short-lived. Weeks after the Hamptons showdown, Kirk was dead. Ackman, who had publicly praised Kirk just a day after his death, now faces questions about his role in the pressure campaign. He’s denied the allegations, calling them “totally false,” but when asked for proof, he refused to provide it.
A movement at a crossroads

Kirk’s death leaves behind a conservative movement at war with itself. The Hamptons meeting exposed a fault line: between those who demand unquestioning loyalty to Israel and those who believe America’s interests should come first, and truth matters when discussing Israel's actions in the Middle East. Ackman’s strong-arm tactics—backed by a network of pro-Israel billionaires—reveal just how high the stakes are.
Kirk’s final months suggest he was searching for a way out. He’d begun attending Catholic Mass with his wife, Erika, and was considering conversion—a significant shift for someone raised in the evangelical tradition, where support for Israel is often treated as a religious obligation. His friends, like Candace Owens and Catholic influencer Bree Solsdadt, have confirmed this spiritual transformation.
Now, as TPUSA moves forward without him, the question remains: Will the organization honor Kirk’s legacy of independent thought and rise to the occasion, daring to question Israel and the narratives forced onto American political organizations? Or will it become just another cog in the machine of foreign influence? At the very least, imagine the pressure that 31-year-old Charlie Kirk had on him in his final days, with billionaires and foreign governments pushing him to take money and push their narratives - narratives that shape the future of a generation... One thing is certain: The battle for Charlie Kirk’s soul didn’t end with his death. It’s only just beginning.
Sources include:
TheGrayZone.com
TPUSA.com
X.com
Enoch, Brighteon.ai

The Hamptons showdown: How billionaire Bill Ackman’s Israel ‘intervention’ pushed Charlie Kirk to the edge of a Catholic conversion – NaturalNews.com

Florida launches probe into teachers over social media posts celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination

09/16/2025 // Ava Grace // 530 Views

Tags: assassination, big government, Charlie Kirk, conspiracry, crime, education system, First Amendment, free speech, left cult, national security, outrage, politics, public discourse, safety, speech police, violence

• The Florida Department of Education has launched a statewide investigation into public school teachers who allegedly used social media to celebrate or justify the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
• The investigation is based on the state's "Principles of Professional Conduct," which hold educators to a higher standard, arguing that even personal online speech can undermine trust and reduce their effectiveness if it makes students or families feel unwelcome.
• The state acknowledges educators' First Amendment rights but contends these rights are limited by their professional duties, creating a complex legal balancing act between free speech and a public employee's conduct.
• Free speech organizations like FIRE warn that while discipline may be justified if speech disrupts workplace duties, punishing employees solely for their repugnant private views is generally unconstitutional.
• This situation is a microcosm of a national debate, testing the nation's commitment to its foundational values and potentially setting a precedent for how states handle teachers' speech in the digital age.

Florida's Department of Education has initiated a statewide investigation into public school teachers who allegedly used social media to celebrate or justify the recent assassination of prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The action, announced by Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas on Sept. 11, underscores the state's commitment to holding educators to a higher standard of conduct, even in their personal online lives, following a shocking act of political violence that has polarized the nation.
The investigation was triggered after state officials became aware of what Kamoutsas described as despicable comments made by a small number of Florida educators. In a formal memo dispatched to every school district superintendent in the state, Kamoutsas declared that he would personally oversee an inquiry into every educator found engaging in what he labeled as vile and sanctionable behavior. He was careful to note that these individuals are not representative of the vast majority of Florida's high-quality teachers but insisted that their actions demand accountability. (Related: The assassination of Charlie Kirk: A grave blow to free speech in America.)
The commissioner's authority to investigate and potentially revoke state teaching certifications is rooted in Florida's administrative code and state statutes. Kamoutsas specifically cited Rule 6A-10.081, known as the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. This set of ethical guidelines requires certified educators to maintain a standard of behavior that does not undermine the trust of students and their families.
Acknowledging the constitutional protections afforded to all citizens, Kamoutsas stated that while educators do possess First Amendment rights, these rights are not without limits when applied to their professional duties. The core of the state's position is that a public school teacher's role as a trusted community figure carries inherent responsibilities that can curtail absolute free speech, especially when that speech could poison the educational atmosphere for students and parents.
According to Brighteon.AI's Enoch, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida are designed to ensure that educators maintain high ethical standards and uphold the trust placed in them by the community.
A national conversation on speech and safety

Kirk's assassination as he engaged with students on a college campus represents a profound attack on the very principle of open discourse. In its aftermath, a critical national conversation has emerged, grappling with the coarsening of political dialogue and the frightening escalation from heated rhetoric to actual violence. The situation in Florida is a microcosm of this larger struggle, testing the nation's commitment to its foundational values during a period of intense grief and anger.
Organizations dedicated to free speech have watched Florida's response with concern. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a non-partisan group known for defending First Amendment rights on campuses, offered a nuanced view. Senior Program Counsel Stephanie Jablonsky acknowledged that public school teachers do not have unlimited free speech protection and that discipline might be justified if their off-duty speech genuinely undermines their ability to perform their duties or causes serious workplace disruption.
However, Jablonsky issued a critical warning, stating that punishment based solely on official disapproval of an employee's private views is generally unconstitutional. She argued that in the wake of a tragic murder that was itself a betrayal of free speech, the response should be to redouble commitment to open debate, not to erode it by punishing repugnant viewpoints. The principle, she emphasized, is that free speech must protect even the speech one finds most odious.
The investigation into Florida's teachers is a significant moment that probes the delicate intersection of free speech, professional ethics and political tribalism. It forces an examination of what society expects from its educators and how a nation heals and maintains its principles after an act of horrific violence. The outcome will likely resonate far beyond Florida's borders, setting a potential precedent for how other states navigate the complex and often incendiary world of teachers' speech in the digital age.
Watch as President Donald Trump announces to honor Charlie Kirk with the highest award.

This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:

Why We Need the Charlie Kirk Free Speech Act: A Legal Shield Against the Censorship Industrial Complex.
Ilhan Omar sparks outrage with comments on slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Allegations about FBI evidence in Charlie Kirk assassination prompt calls for transparency.
Sources include:
TheEpochTimes.com
FoxNews.com
Brighteon.ai
Brighteon.com

Florida launches probe into teachers over social media posts celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination – NaturalNews.com

Questions Raised Over FBI Evidence Handling in Charlie Kirk Case; Kash Patel Criticizes Investigation

09/16/2025 // Finn Heartley // 170 Views

Tags: biased, big government, campus insanity, cancel Democrats, Censorship, chaos, Charlie Kirk, conspiracy, Dangerous, deep state, evil, FBI, FBI corruption, First Amendment, free speech, gun violence, intolerance, left cult, Liberty, lunatics, outrage, patriot, real investigations, shootings, Suppressed, terrorism, tragedy, Twisted, Tyranny, unhinged, USA, Utah, Utah Valley University, violence, Vote Republican

• FBI’s Evidence Questioned: Forensic experts challenge FBI Director Kash Patel’s claims about a destroyed “confession note” and disputed DNA analysis in the Charlie Kirk assassination case, calling them speculative and inadmissible in court.
• Doubt Over Ballistics & DNA: The FBI’s unverified claims of “transgender inscriptions” on ammunition and vague “positively processed” DNA lack concrete evidence, with experts noting unreliable bullet-matching science and missing lab documentation.
• Political Motivations Alleged: Patel’s rhetoric—including references to “sorcerer’s spells” and unseen forces—fuels accusations of politicization, drawing parallels to past FBI controversies like January 6 prosecutions.
• Fear of Expanded Crackdown: Concerns grow that the FBI may target dissent, especially with AG Pam Bondi’s push for “hate speech laws,” raising alarms about broader suppression of free speech.
• Public Trust at Stake: Critics warn the case tests public gullibility, comparing unverified FBI narratives to COVID-era misinformation, emphasizing the need for transparency to restore faith in justice.

The FBI’s handling of evidence in the assassination case of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk has come under intense scrutiny, with forensic experts and critics questioning the reliability of key investigative claims. At the center of the controversy is FBI Director Kash Patel, who has faced accusations of politicizing the probe while failing to substantiate critical details—including the alleged existence of a confession note and disputed DNA analysis.
The Phantom Confession Note

Patel has repeatedly referenced a handwritten note purportedly left by the suspect, describing it as a confession that read, “I have the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I’m going to take it.” However, Patel admitted the note no longer exists—claiming it was destroyed—but insists the FBI has “forensic evidence” of its contents due to an “aggressive interview posture.”
Forensic analysts and legal experts have dismissed this as speculative at best. “A destroyed note with no physical record is not forensic evidence—it’s hearsay,” said one former federal prosecutor. “If this were presented in court, it would be laughed out as inadmissible.” Critics argue Patel’s phrasing—such as “positively processed” DNA—is deliberately vague, avoiding definitive claims of a match while implying guilt.
Disputed Ballistics and DNA Claims

Further skepticism surrounds the FBI’s assertion that ammunition recovered at the scene bore “transgender inscriptions”—a claim never substantiated with photographic evidence. Similarly, Patel’s declaration that DNA recovered from a towel and screwdriver linked to the suspect was “positively processed” has raised eyebrows. Forensic experts note that without a confirmed chain of custody or verifiable lab results, such claims hold little weight.
Ballistics matching—another pillar of the FBI’s case—has long been criticized as unreliable. Studies, including a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, have found that bullet-to-barrel matching lacks scientific rigor, with error rates as high as 52% in some cases. “This isn’t CSI,” said a firearms analyst. “You can’t magically trace a bullet back to one specific gun without serious caveats.”
Political Motivations and Deep State Fears

Patel’s rhetoric has fueled accusations of a politically charged investigation. His insistence on a “sorcerer’s spell” narrative—where unseen forces manipulate public perception—has drawn comparisons to past FBI controversies, such as the January 6 prosecutions, where “virtual barriers” were retroactively defined to justify trespassing charges.
Some speculate the FBI is setting the stage for a broader crackdown on dissent, particularly against left-wing groups. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent push for “hate speech laws” has only intensified concerns. “This isn’t about justice—it’s about control,” warned one legal commentator. “First, they target the left, then they come for everyone else.”
The Bigger Picture: A Test of Public Gullibility

Adams argues that the Kirk case is part of a broader “global IQ test” to see how easily the public accepts unverified narratives. From COVID-era vaccine mandates to forensic pseudoscience, he warns that blind trust in authority enables systemic deception. “If people believe in imaginary notes and fake ballistics, they’ll believe anything,” he said.
As the investigation unfolds, one thing is clear: without transparent evidence and accountability, the FBI’s credibility—and the public’s faith in justice—hangs in the balance.
Watch the Sep. 16 episode of "Brighteon Broadcast News" as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, exposed fake forensics: The FBI is pushing loads of fake evidence to deceive us all.

This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:

MANHUNT: FBI releases images of a suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, rifle recovered
Allegations about FBI evidence in Charlie Kirk assassination prompt calls for transparency
The assassination of Charlie Kirk: A grave blow to free speech in America
Sources include:
Brighteon.com

Questions Raised Over FBI Evidence Handling in Charlie Kirk Case; Kash Patel Criticizes Investigation – NaturalNews.com

Meet Lisa Schmidt, now a FORMER NASDAQ climate adviser FIRED for mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination

09/16/2025 // Lance D Johnson // 80 Views

Tags: assassination attempt, Charlie Kirk, climate adviser, Conservative, corporate accountability, free speech, Hate speech, Instagram, Left-wing, Lisa Schmidt, msnbc, NASDAQ, Perkins Coie, political violence, radicalization, Social media, stephen miller, termination, University of Kentucky, White House



Meet Lisa Schmidt, a senior sustainability and climate adviser, the kind of professional whose job involves lecturing corporations on ethical responsibility. Her LinkedIn bio, now scrubbed of Nasdaq’s logo, once brimmed with buzzwords like “ESG integration” and “stakeholder capitalism.” Yet when faced with the assassination of a 31-year-old man — Charlie Kirk — her first instinct was to spit on his memory from a European café, celebrating his death. But when she gets back from her European trip, she won't have a job with Nasdaq.Nasdaq rebuked her immediately:

“We are aware of social media posts by an employee regarding the shooting of Charlie Kirk that were a clear violation of our policy. Nasdaq has a zero-tolerance policy toward violence and any commentary that condones or celebrates violence. The employee in question has been terminated, effective immediately.”

Key points:

• Nasdaq fired senior climate adviser Lisa Schmidt after she posted “Rest in piss” in response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, alongside a photo of herself flipping off the camera.
• Schmidt is part of a growing wave of professionals — teachers, lawyers, professors — openly celebrating Kirk’s death, revealing a cultural rot that transcends politics.
• Companies like MSNBC and Perkins Coie have also terminated employees for similar comments, but the scale of the problem suggests a deeper radicalization.
• White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller warned that society has been “dangerously radicalized by a closed circuit of radical left propaganda.”
• The killings of conservative figures (Kirk, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump) are being normalized as "justice" by a faction that sees speech it dislikes as a capital offense.
• The hypocrisy of corporate "values" is exposed: Firms preach ESG and "kindness" while employing people who cheer political murder.

A disturbing pattern of hatred

Schmidt’s Instagram post was not an isolated outburst but part of a broader, alarming trend. In the wake of Kirk’s shooting, left-wing figures across industries — from academia to corporate law — have openly reveled in the violence. Bradley Dlatt, an attorney at the progressive firm Perkins Coie, lost his job after calling Kirk a “leading spreader of hatred.” A University of Kentucky security officer was suspended for quoting Clarence Darrow’s infamous line about reading obituaries “with great satisfaction.” The disgusting MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd faced immediate termination after suggesting Kirk bore responsibility for his own attack, parroting the dangerous notion that “hateful words lead to hateful actions.”
The implication is chilling: If you disagree with someone politically, their suffering becomes justified. This is not activism. It is dehumanization.
Corporate accountability meets political radicalism

Nasdaq’s decisive response —“The employee in question has been terminated, effective immediately” — stands in stark contrast to institutions that have hesitated to punish similar behavior. Schmidt’s role as a “climate adviser” adds another layer of irony. The same movement that preaches empathy and social justice produced a woman who laughed at a near-fatal shooting.
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller summed up the crisis aptly: “A huge portion of our society has been radicalized by a closed circuit of left-wing propaganda.” The normalization of such vitriol didn’t happen overnight. Years of divisive rhetoric, from media pundits to activist educators, have eroded basic decency. When a city council member declares “the world is a better place” after an assassination attempt, it’s clear how deep the sickness runs.
This isn’t about silencing dissent. Kirk has been a vocal advocate for free speech on college campuses, and has given opposing views a platform to speak and be heard. Those mocking his assassination aren’t defending progressive values — they’re endorsing terror. The left’s descent into violent rhetoric mirrors the very extremism it claims to oppose.
The solution starts with firing bad actors like Schmidt, but it goes beyond that, and requires a cultural reckoning, a spiritual awakening. If hatred and the celebration of murder and assassination is allowed to fester under the guise of political expression, the next target of assassination could be anyone who dares to speak on important issues.
Sources include:
ClimateDepot.com
X.com
X.com

Meet Lisa Schmidt, now a FORMER NASDAQ climate adviser FIRED for mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination – NaturalNews.com