Please join me LIVE for the Turning Point USA Farewell party. piped.video/live/bIuvTKlFeGo PLEASE NOTE: I am oscillating between the emotions of anger for the lies and gaslighting I’ve been made to endure ver the last year, and the relief that comes from being proven correct about what took place. Mostly, I am devastated for Charlie that the organization that he gave his everything to, so callously and unflinchingly partook in a ruthless year long campaign of deflection and obfuscating.

Rather surprised though, that Ben has not picked up Diana’s Bloody Tiara. Is he off his game?

2026 is the year of the great unraveling. Thank you Charles. @cspencer1508

Emma Woolf on GB News announcing her explosive, urgent and passionate new book, The Kids Are NOT Alright. Emma masterfully contrasts the freedom-loving childhoods of the past with what children face today: screen addiction, anxiety, eating disorders, social isolation, ideological indoctrination and a woke education system that has lost its way. This has Sunday Times bestseller and #1 written all over it! Because THIS is the book we need to start fighting for our children and their childhoods. THE KIDS ARE NOT ALRIGHT: Published by Free Speech Press. @thecoastguy @EJWoolf @RickArmstrong11 @GBNEWS @Iromg @AlanMillerReal @EllieHodgesxx @JamesMelville @anika_climate @georgegalloway @georgegalloway @policylaila @sophielouisecc @lensiseethrough @Artemisfornow @trussliz @JimFergusonUK @ClareCraigPath @beverleyturner @TuckerCarlson @Beck_Sall

The great undoer. @JohnMappin redefining the narrative. Deliciously. Watch Piers Morgan's bemused countenance. Tatum with nary a clue. Pickles . . . well, you know.

True art.

I don't care if he is a triple vaxed mask wearing beanie touting ukro stooging bard of Woodstock dramtising his cacophony during the Summer of Love. Genocide is always wrong and Ed needs to find his conscience somewhere among the melodic platitudes that have allowed him the luxury of a creative life. The time is now and he is in it. He will either own it or lose this moment.

Thats a huge compliment. Golly.

This is a fascinating analysis @OwenBenjamin to be honest. During Pier’s most interesting program I was actually sitting in the middle of Wiltshire in the depths of the English country side. I could not see anyone on screen and because and have slight tinnitus (hearing difficulty), i could barely discern who was speaking at times as I was listening to the proceedings down the line via an ear piece in my ear. Luckily we were able to record my contribution our end. The points that I was trying to make are somewhat more understandable without the interruptions. Personally I think that the number of accumulated anomalies and factual discrepancies warrent a much larger investigation and as a combined picture I cannot imagine that others were they to watch Candaces shows in sequence would not demand further inspection of the facts. It has always amazed me that Turning Point and the Trump administration have not been sharing all information with and working with Candace as opposed to attacking her at the outset and denying what are demonstrable facts. But perhaps now they will. Many more whistle blowers have and will come forward with honesty and what they have to say is revealing to say the least. @RealCandaceO @baroncoleman @piersmorgan

Brandon @TheOfficerTatum is right when he says that one can be a persons friend and disagree with them. This is elementary. My question to him in the @piersmorgan debate was simple. Does Brandon think that Candace @RealCandaceO is sincere in her purpose to discover who killed Charlie Kirk and why? It also seems to me from the communication that I have seen from him on the subject that he has either not seen or has not understood Candace’s investigation. I suspect he has not payed any attention to the detail at all and is simply responding to highlighted clips that misrepresent her true intentions. If Brandon asserts that he is a friend of Charlie’s and wants justice for him the least he could do is to study Candace’s sequential investigation and engage with full understanding rather than without it. I happen to think that Brandon is basically a good soul. Decent people should work together to get to the truth. Good communication and understanding is a friend to the truth not its enemy. I thought it best to clarify this. As there has been some confusion. Total transparency is the key 🔑 🙏

❤️❤️❤️

This is actually a very spot on analysis of the @piersmorgan interview by Owen @OwenBenjamin Owen has one of the most cultivated and at the same time time suppressed wits in America he has been in the vanguard of truth for some time. His ability to apply satirical humour to undress the enslavers is nearly unmatched in the modern world. If we lived in the age of Versailles he would be a king maker with vast estates granted to him. As it is he walks the path of Voltaire, Hogarth, Jules Verne, Dickens and the world’s great inspectors. He runs one of the most engaging and fun accounts on x. He has a highly sophisticated cult following among the intellectual aristocracy. Usually I have an aversion to cults - but I am enjoying this one. @RealCandaceO He has vanquished those who tried to silence his humour. So he still is making us laugh. On top of that he knows about some great fishing spots. J🎯😂

Beautiful ❤️🙏🏻

What is it about the idea of a pure Christian love and taking full responsibility for a situation and for Charlie’s purpose and for his loves that drives such people so crazy? The matter is far far more nuanced that these so called friends are presenting and those with the intellectual integrity to listen to Candace’s shows - in sequence - generally arrive at the conclusion that we are being lied to about what happened. That is my view too. We love Erika and know that true friendship is best served by the truth. Thank you for a timely discussion @piersmorgan @PiersUncensored The whole panel discussion is well worth watching. Candace has more to share. @RealCandaceO So stay tuned.

Fabulous evening with this divinely handsome creation. Ladies of London won’t be leaving this one alone. Intellect and beauty in a man are a rare combination. Virtually extinct in a modern culture.

WHEN THE STATE BECOMES THE WEAPON The Weaponisation of Power Against Milo Yiannopoulos By John Mappin | IF Magazine There is an old and extremely important distinction between the rule of law and rule by law. The first protects civilisation. The second can destroy it. Under the rule of law, the law stands above politics. It applies equally to the fashionable and unfashionable, the powerful and powerless, the popular and unpopular. Under rule by law, something rather different happens. The institutions remain. There are still judges, courts, officials, hearings, warrants, agencies and statutes. Everything retains the appearance of constitutional order. But somewhere along the way the question changes. Instead of asking, What does justice require?, people begin asking: What can we use against him? That distinction is worth considering in the extraordinary case of Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo is not an easy man to defend. That is precisely the point. Free societies are not tested by how they treat people everybody likes. They are tested by what happens to the awkward man, the offensive man, the dissident, the troublemaker and, above all, the man who has accumulated powerful enemies. Milo has spent much of his adult life collecting them. For more than a decade he has made a profession of saying things other people considered unsayable. He has offended the Left and the Right, liberals and conservatives, journalists and politicians, activists and institutions. At various moments he has even managed to offend many of his own friends. One need not approve of everything Milo has ever said — I certainly do not — to recognise something infinitely more important. He has a right to be treated justly. And justice ceases to be justice the moment it depends upon whether we approve of the defendant. THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE HAS TEETH In late August Milo Yiannopoulos was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The government's stated position was straightforward: Milo had remained in the United States beyond the period authorised by his visa, had failed to appear at an immigration hearing and had consequently become subject to a final order of removal. He was subsequently detained and deported to Britain. Those facts matter. If somebody breaches immigration law, holding controversial political opinions does not magically exempt him from it. But neither does that dispose of the wider question. It raises it. Why does the machinery of government descend upon some people with extraordinary efficiency while apparently passing others by? That question becomes especially important whenever private political disputes and personal vendettas begin intersecting with the coercive machinery of the state. There is an enormous difference between enforcing the law and encouraging the state to investigate one's political or personal opponents in the hope that something can be found against them. The first is government. The second is potentially something much darker. And anyone who believes in constitutional government ought to recognise the difference. FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE SPEECH Milo's story did not begin with immigration. Years before his deportation, his appearances on American university campuses had become battlegrounds over whether controversial political speech should be permitted at all. At Berkeley in 2017, protests surrounding one of his scheduled appearances descended into violence and the event was cancelled. Consider the extraordinary inversion. A speaker is controversial. Opponents threaten disorder. The authorities fear disorder. And therefore the speaker disappears. It is the ancient mechanism known as the heckler's veto. You do not actually have to censor somebody if you can make the consequences of allowing him to speak sufficiently unpleasant. And the modern mechanism extends far beyond universities. Publishers, payment processors, social-media platforms, banks, employers, professional organisations and government agencies collectively possess an astonishing capacity to make somebody disappear from respectable public life. Each institution may insist that it acted independently. Perhaps it did. But the cumulative result can nevertheless resemble something very different from ordinary disagreement. It can resemble civic erasure. THEN COME THE COURTS There is another characteristic of modern political warfare that deserves considerably more attention. The legal process itself can become punishment. A person does not necessarily need to be convicted of anything to have his life profoundly damaged by law. Lawyers must be hired. Documents produced. Hearings attended. Depositions endured. Deadlines observed. Money spent. Years disappear. Reputations become permanently associated with litigation merely because litigation exists. None of this means courts should not function. Of course they should. Nor does it mean that every case involving a political figure constitutes persecution. Plainly it does not. The danger arises when citizens begin to regard the legal system not principally as a means of obtaining justice, but as another battlefield upon which political enemies can be exhausted. That is the phenomenon sometimes called lawfare. And it is corrosive because it retains all the outward appearances of legality. No dictator is required. No secret police are necessary. The paperwork is perfectly in order. “BUT HE BROKE THE LAW” There is a sentence increasingly heard in modern politics: “But he broke the law.” Sometimes that settles the matter. But sometimes it does not. Modern states have accumulated enormous forests of statutes, regulations, administrative requirements, tax provisions, immigration rules and reporting obligations. Consequently, the mere existence of a technical violation cannot always answer the question of selective enforcement. The deeper question is whether the same machinery would have moved with the same determination against somebody politically useful, fashionable or protected. That is where equality before the law becomes meaningful. It does not merely mean that the same statute exists on paper for everybody. It means that the coercive attention of the state must not be allocated according to friendship, faction, influence or ideology. If my friend commits an offence, the law should apply. If my enemy commits precisely the same offence, the law should apply precisely the same way. Anything else is not justice. It is politics wearing a judge's wig. THE RIGHT SHOULD KNOW BETTER There is an especially uncomfortable aspect to Milo's case for conservatives. Milo himself has advocated tough immigration enforcement. His opponents can therefore laugh and say that he has merely received the policies he wanted imposed upon others. Perhaps there is an irony there. But schadenfreude is not a constitutional principle. If conservatives genuinely believe in borders, courts, police and strong institutions, then they carry a greater responsibility — not a lesser one — to ensure those powers are exercised impersonally. Otherwise the conservative argument for strong institutions quietly becomes an argument for strong institutions provided our people control them. That is not conservatism. It is factionalism. And eventually the faction changes. This is the lesson political movements repeatedly refuse to learn. Every weapon constructed for your enemy will eventually be inherited by somebody who considers you the enemy. THE PERFECT TEST Milo is therefore almost the perfect test of whether we actually believe the principles we claim to believe. Not because he is always right. Not because he is always wise. Certainly not because he is always polite. He matters precisely because he is difficult. It requires virtually no courage to defend the liberties of somebody whose opinions are approved by every respectable newspaper. The real test comes when the individual is outrageous, embarrassing, unpredictable and capable of saying things one desperately wishes he had not said. Civilisation means that even that man receives justice. Especially that man. The political weaponisation of institutions rarely announces itself with trumpets. Nobody hangs a brass plaque outside a government department reading: OFFICE OF POLITICAL PERSECUTION. It arrives bureaucratically. A complaint. A referral. A subpoena. An investigation. A hearing. A regulation. A missed deadline. A removal order. Every individual step may be lawful. Every official involved may believe he is simply doing his job. And yet citizens must retain the courage to ask whether the immense coercive power of government is being applied consistently — or whether political and personal warfare has somehow found its way inside the machinery. That question is not an attack upon the rule of law. It is essential to preserving it. Because the law must punish conduct, not opinions. Government must administer justice, not revenge. Courts must resolve disputes, not become weapons through which the wealthy, powerful or politically connected can exhaust their enemies. And political factions must resist the intoxicating temptation to summon the power of the state against people they dislike. The moment we abandon those principles because the person concerned is Milo Yiannopoulos, we have established something considerably more important than what happens to Milo. We have established that the principle itself is negotiable. And once equality before the law becomes negotiable, the only remaining question is who controls the machinery. Today it may be Milo. Tomorrow it may be someone you despise. And the day after that— it may be you. @Nero @RealCandaceO @piersmorgan @RupertLowe10 @OwenBenjamin @AwakenWithJP @RealAlexJones @jimmy_dore @TuckerCarlson @buckleycarlson @joekent16jan19 @GenFlynn @BretWeinstein @goddek @danwootton @PaulConnolly10

Wow. WHAT AN EPISODE. It was a HUGE Salmon too. Candace is being very modest. She is an excellent fisherwoman and to catch a salmon on the fly is no small achievement . It was just the best time. Salmon fishing is a delightful pastime. We went to a volcano 🌋exhibition in Iceland. That whole country is volcanic 🌋 by the way. And sits on the top of a plume of L-L-L-Lava. 🌋 Apparently volcanoes 🌋 erupt when there is a build up of pressure. Our own observation in relation to the truth about Charlie is that there is a build up of extraordinary beings that have come forward, good souls who want to help. We appreciated Candace’s @RealCandaceO extraordinary acknowledgment this eve. But we would like to pay her compliments forward to all those future decentralised whistleblowers that have just about had enough of the lies and cover ups. Decency and doing the right thing are the new zeitgeist. And when one comes clean about what one knows one feels a whole lot happier. I have a feeling that we will appreciate and enjoy the coming episodes. Much is brewing below the surface and tea will be served. All our love John and Irina xxx🌋💕💕🌋 Enjoy this episode below. 🌋🌋🌋🌋🌋🌋🌋🌋🌋🌋🌋 @ImMappin

Brilliant

We tried to warn them. @RWMaloneMD @RealCandaceO @DoctorCole

Candace