reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Questioning whether the speaker was kicked out of CPAC, the exchange goes: "And you were kicked out of CPAC. Right?" The reply: "I wasn't kicked out. Or you were disinvited? What what let's there was some kind of drama on Twitter." The other party says: "Don't think so. Tell me everything. There's no drama." The speaker then clarifies: "I, you know, like I said, I came out here I came out here to CPAC last year, had a great time. You know, met my hero, Ben Shapiro. I met my mentor and friend, Casa Dillon. And and so I just came out again this year."

Trans students on this campus feel victimized by your presence. You mentioned this man's transition, but earlier you dismissed their concerns. Life's tough, get a helmet. I can't handle this, next question.

The speaker asserts that Erica Kirk is not a grieving widow but a psychopath, contending there was a plan to hijack Charlie Kirk’s organization and that Erica was part of it. They claim Erica’s actions are highly suspicious: she delivers multiple speeches and participates in hours-long interviews while on a book tour, all while supposedly grieving, and they question where Charlie and Erica’s children are given she appears to be living it up on stage with fireworks. They allege she and Charlie did multiple interviews together discussing family roles and that the mother’s role in the home was vital, yet she suddenly becomes a CEO and nonstop public figure “overnight,” contradicting prior statements about Erica’s primary role at home. The speaker calls this a test of intelligence and dismisses the possibility of genuine intent. A central sign cited is Ben Shapiro’s appearance as the opening speaker at Amfest, despite not being on Charlie’s published list of Amfest speakers. The speaker notes that Shapiro speaks after Erica and uses the platform to bash Charlie’s close friends, including Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, accusing Shapiro of hostility and implying ulterior motives. They mention Shapiro’s last podcast with Carlson involved controversial questions about a country, and they reference Fox News and other media figures as complicit, alleging they’re paid off by that country and are “singing along.” The speaker highlights that Turning Point USA raised $100,000,000 and frames the organization as deceptive, arguing that people are being fooled and should wake up. They urge warning peers—siblings, cousins, friends—about Turning Point at colleges and high schools, suggesting people should withdraw support and avoid recruitment. The claim is made that Erica Kirk’s ex-boyfriend, Cabot Phillips, now speaks on college visits on behalf of Charlie, despite Erica claiming she had dated nobody for five years before Charlie. Photos allegedly show Erica with Cabot on dates, and Cabot is described as suddenly joining Turning Point USA’s “debate me” movement. Overall, the speaker contends that Turning Point USA has been hijacked, that Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk are involved in a calculated scheme, and that the leadership has been replaced or compromised, including the “killing” of their CEO. They urge people to stop supporting the organization and to inform others who might be recruited by it, insisting that common sense should prevail.

And I was being attacked too. By the way, it was a huge effort by people, some of whom I know and have helped and like Seth Dillon, the Babylon Bee, for example. Seth Dillon was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. Shocking that someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in the idea that we all get to speak and if you don't like it, make a more compelling case. That that person and many others like him were advocating for me getting pulled off the stage because they don't like what I'm saying. This is a trend and one that we should be really concerned about. The trend is really simple. People with power don't want to hear disagreement.

I saw a report about being asked to leave an event, but I don't understand why. I asked why I had to leave, and they said it's because it's private property. I don't get it. I asked if they worked for Nikki's campaign, but they didn't answer. I received an email and a text asking me to sign up for the event, so I don't understand what the problem is. I asked nicely, but they didn't have any answers for me. It felt like they were being anti-woman.

I am disappointed in how Turning Point is handling freedom of speech, especially in relation to Charlie Kirk’s approach, which I used to respect for valuing freedom of speech and engaging with people you disagree with. In this event, the people who went before me in the Q&A were part of the event themselves and were designated those spots in line for the Q&A. At least three out of four of them, and possibly the fourth, were designated spots for people who know they support the administration. They also knew the time was limited. They end the Q&A before the first person who opposes the administration, and possibly before the first person who isn’t part of the event themselves. This is in addition to the 20 other people behind me in line who also wanted to ask a question but didn’t have time. I don’t blame them for ending the Q&A because they were running out of time; Caroline Levitt is nine months pregnant now, so I understand the timing. But if you have limited time, why are you not allowing the actual students to speak first? The concern is that spots were designated to attendees who are aligned with the administration, reducing opportunities for dissenting or non-aligned voices, and that this occurred in a setting where there is limited time for questions.

I attended UCLA in 2016 when Trump was elected. During midterms, professors offered students time off to "heal" from the election. In a mandatory discussion class, everyone was emotional, and when asked how I was coping, I shared that I voted for Trump and believed it would be a good four years. I was then kicked out for being a "threat" to my classmates' safety. This experience made me realize the need to speak out against such intolerance. I recently started posting on TikTok and encourage others to do the same. I don’t hate anyone, but I’m unfairly labeled with negative terms that don’t reflect who I am. It's important to stand up and be heard.

The University of Washington released a statement regarding the Turning Point Ride Again Center event, suggesting that the event was intended to provoke disruption for social media content. However, the reality was that protesters were breaking windows, throwing objects, and creating chaos, which included pulling fire alarms and using lights to disrupt the event. The goal of the event was to discuss the protection of women's sports and free speech. Notably, Donald Trump recently signed an executive order mandating that college campuses must uphold free speech or risk losing federal funding. The university's actions contradict this mandate, and I expressed excitement about the event's cancellation, indicating that it reflects my commitment to the cause. I plan to return.

Candace asks for help identifying Cooper Brown, the kid who shoved the microphone away from a speaker, who later appeared on Fox News. He’s described as a PR guy and a political expert, and as 'magically a ghost online, and nobody can find him.' The video notes witnesses insisting multiple shots were heard, including a man shoved as he tried to speak. He says: 'I was standing from probably the third row in the bottom. I saw hit I heard the shot ring out. I looked to my left, and I looked over to my right. I saw him slump over in his chair forward.' The shover is described as not a Turning Point USA employee or UVU student, but a volunteer who later spoke to Fox News. The speaker questions Cooper’s identity and seeks answers from Turning Point USA and asks for information from Southern New Hampshire University contacts.

Hello. What's the educational benefit of talking about things that won't help someone on the SAT? She clearly doesn't care. She needs to put down her sign. I'm being a gentleman here. You're putting me out for asking you to abide by the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't hold up signs. This is tyranny, and we're dealing with a corrupt government system.

Speaker 0: Audience, someone from the left comes up to the mic, let's treat them with respect. Let's not interrupt or scowl or boo them. Show the left the respect that we don't get on these college campuses. With that, let's do some

Speaker 0: Hey Navarro, caught any good fish lately? What's the point of discussing this? Will it help someone's SAT score? Time for a shot. She doesn't care. That's a sign. She should stop talking. Percent. This gentleman is bothering me. Yeah, why? We're just asking you to follow the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't. This is tyranny, dealing with a corrupt government.

Speaker 0, who identifies as Ray Gallagher: Class of '97. I made it halfway through 1995, but for some reason, I was too ill behaved to even make it through Heather Ridge. I identify as Ray Gallagher, and I'm gonna go by Ray Gallagher for the rest of the speech. So you guys had six kids raped, and the first thing you thought to do was to start to ban free speech and require driver's licenses in order to stop citizens from calling you out on your bull. Well, it's not gonna work. Speaker 1: Mister Porter, I'm Speaker 0: gonna stop. I'm gonna stop Speaker 1: you right there. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. There is nothing disruptive about the content of my free speech. Do you wanna talk about Cohen versus California? Did you stop my time? You did. Speaker 1: It is stopped. Speaker 0: I'm gonna continue. No. It didn't stop. It's still counting. I'm looking at it. It's two minutes. Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you one more chance, and then I'm gonna ask you to sit down. Speaker 0: For what? Speaker 1: To abide by our new policy. Speaker 0: You can't ban specific words. My my particular view of your policies, the fact you got all these kids raped by a transgender person and then you keep pushing transgender stuff on children, is that your policy is completely out of line with America. Now this is a transgender flag, and I would like to show you demonstrably what America and the voters think about the transgender ideology being pushed on children. So that right there is what America thinks of your transgender policy four four three. Most people don't support this garbage. Literally support chopping off appendages of children and giving them puberty blockers that make them sterile. You're a monster, all of you, the ones that vote for it support this stuff. The board is out of line. The board's policies are out of line. You guys don't know what you're doing. You're pissing everybody off.

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

I was at UT Austin where I encountered transgender pro Palestine protesters. I questioned if Palestine mistreats trans people. The protesters were offended and refused to engage. I expressed disbelief that gay rights and support for Palestine could coexist. The situation escalated with insults exchanged.

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting politics to be shaped by biblical principles, but the experience did not meet that expectation. The event opened with a speaker who immediately criticized Candace Owens, calling her evil and antisemitic, and stating that what she’s doing is evil. I wanted to leave, but security was intense—armed men were stationed all around the venue, and there was even an armed man on stage with a hand on his gun. The security presence made me uncomfortable. Inside, the speaker talked extensively about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, portraying them as evil and antisemitic. He argued that Christians should support Israel because Jesus was a Jew and Judaism underpins Christianity, while claiming that what Israel is doing is evil and corrupt. He suggested that refusing to support Israel would be anti-Semitic. I disagree with this framing, and it struck me as not aligning with what I expect from biblical politics. I also noted that the speaker referenced Charlie Kirk (though I recall it as Charlie Cook) and suggested that Kirk would not endorse the positions being discussed, referencing Kirk’s and Owens’ friendship and his past critiques of Israel. Throughout, the speaker’s preaching style resembled name-calling rather than traditional preaching. He labeled the political left as “idiots,” “freaks,” and “losers,” and spent much of the time denigrating liberals rather than offering constructive biblical guidance. This approach felt discordant with Christian teachings I associate with Jesus, who, as the speaker himself stated he loves, “ate with sinners,” including prostitutes. I felt the message was spreading hate rather than embodying the inclusive example I expect from Christian doctrine. A major concern was the impact on young attendees. Teenagers and young Christians appeared to be absorbing the message, treating this figure as a leader and a future guide for their faith, which raised alarms about further division within the Christian community. In summary, the event did not teach the biblical political perspectives I anticipated. The emphasis was on discrediting the left and on framing Israel in terms of Jewish loyalty, rather than engaging with broader Christian concerns. The speaker’s approach—name-calling of political opponents, calls for aggressive stances, and a heavy focus on left-wing critique—left me feeling that the session did not align with constructive faith-based political discussion. The speaker also touched on issues like men in women’s sports, but stated this was not the most important topic for Christians to discuss amid broader national concerns.

The speaker asserts they have been banned from the University of Guelph for life, receiving a notice of trespass that prohibits entering all University properties for an indefinite period from the date of the letter. The speaker explains that the ban followed actions on March 6, 2026. According to the speaker, in the parking lot around 07:00, they were in the company of a family member. The family member began a conversation with some Middle Eastern girls in the car next to theirs. The topic of the conversation was the war in Iran, and the speaker claims that this conversation was unwelcome. It was not stated at the time that the conversation was unwelcome, but the speaker says they later learned it was. The speaker states that the conversation was reported, and as a result, both the family member and the speaker are banned. The speaker emphasizes that they did not participate in the conversation. They were physically removed from the area, although they heard the conversation from about 10 feet away. Despite not taking part, the speaker says they are now banned from the university. The speaker comments on the broader notion of consequences in Canada, noting, “You can actually get banned from a university for listening to an unwelcome conversation in Canada.” They describe the situation as “great stuff, guys,” conveying apparent disbelief at the outcome. The overall account centers on a life ban, a trespass notice, and the claim that merely listening to an unwelcome discussion led to the prohibition from university property.

Speaker 0: Hey Navarro, caught any good fish lately? What's the point of discussing this? Will it help someone's SAT score? Time for a shot. She doesn't care. That's a sign. She should stop talking. Percent. This gentleman is bothering me. Uh-huh. Why? We're asking you to follow the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't. This is tyranny, dealing with a corrupt government.

Charlie Kirk recounts an UNC lecture where protesters called him a racist and 'fascist' and 'These people shouldn't be allowed to live.' Asked, 'What did they say that's hateful and racist?', he says they couldn't articulate anything he believes and that it was 'open ended insults, and it's things that are completely fake and false.' He explains, 'if anyone disagrees, they're allowed to come to the front of the line and ask any question they want to whatsoever.' He laments that administrators didn't encourage dialogue, calling campuses 'almost islands of totalitarianism' and noting 'the left is wrong' while 'the left think that we as conservatives are bad.' He emphasizes TPUSA is 'diverse' and 'representing all students of all different backgrounds' though protesters 'know nothing of that' and 'they've never met me.'

A University of Georgia student recounts asking JD Vance a question at a Turning Point event. He opened by raising a concern: if there are compromised government officials in the files, how can the public trust that this administration will hold anyone accountable when its own justice department is blocking the investigation? He says he sat in front and intended to ask about a formal investigation, and when Q&A was announced, he rushed to the mic. He describes five people already at the mic wearing TP USA lanyards. He asserts he was the first non-TP USA attendee in line and that, while waiting, a woman in a blue top circulated questions and asked attendees, particularly those not in TP USA, what topic they planned to ask about. He claims it appeared questions were being screened by topic, and he indicated he would ask about foreign policy. After several inquiries about his topic, the process continued. He says the last person before him was allowed to proceed, but the blue-clad woman then placed someone else in front of him because her topic was deemed “better.” He recalls pushing back slightly and, when JD Vance agreed to take one more question, he finally delivered his question. Another moderator briefly interrupted to allow one more question, and the student thanks the vice president as well as JD Vance for allowing free speech at UGA. He notes that, although the organizers advocate for freedom of speech and noncensorship, his experience suggested otherwise, and he describes this as his experience of how the event was managed. He closes by thanking the organizers.

And I was being attacked too. There was a huge effort by people, some of whom I know and have helped and like Seth Dillon, the Babylon Bee, for example. Seth Dillon was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. Shocking that someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in the idea that we all get to speak and if you don't like it, make a more compelling case. That that person and many others like him were advocating for me getting pulled off the stage because they don't like what I'm saying. This is a trend and one that we should be really concerned about.

We just got kicked out of a Kamala rally in Tampa. We’re both local voters and had invites, but as soon as we entered, staffers swarmed us and called the cops. We weren’t causing any trouble. This is supposed to be a party that values free speech and diversity, yet they couldn’t tolerate our presence. The event was barely half full, and they clearly needed more attendees. It’s ironic that they claim to support openness while acting like this. The staffers seemed nervous and took photos of us instead of engaging. That was our brief experience at the Kamala event today.

Speaker 0: The speech opens with a critique of denouncing and a reference to the red guard/ c ultural revolution, questioning why nobody denounces others the way that era was denounced. The speaker recalls that the entire point of Charlie Kirk’s public life was to have actual debate, and asserts that Charlie “died for it.” The last several months of Charlie’s life were devoted, in part, to arguing about this event and this speech, which he asked the speaker to deliver earlier this year, this summer. The speaker notes that Charlie faced immense pressure from people who fund Turning Point who wanted him to remove the speaker from the roster. This has all become public, and the speaker describes the situation as sad, stating that Charlie stood firm in his often stated and deeply held belief that people should be able to debate. The speaker emphasizes that if someone has something valid to say and is telling the truth, they ought to be able to explain it calmly and in detail to people who don’t agree with them, and that they shouldn’t immediately resort to “shut up racist.” The speaker adds that “shut up racist” is the number one reason they voted for Donald Trump. They declare that if they were a racist or a bigot, they would simply say so, noting that it’s America and one is allowed to be whatever kind of person they want. They insist they are not a racist and have always opposed-bigoted views, but criticize the style of debate that prevents the other side from talking or being heard by immediately going to motive, asking why the question is asked, and stating they detect “a certain evil in your soul” in the question. They say that listening to such a question implicates the listeners too, and that someday they may be asked to denounce that person; they assert that friendship is not a reason to defend someone and that love is no defense. The speaker reflects that they thought that phase had ended and that they are not going to engage in those rules. They affirm that if someone doesn’t like what they think, that’s fine as long as they get to express it. That remains their view.

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting to learn about politics from a biblical perspective, but the experience did not meet those expectations. The speaker began by calling out Candace Owens as evil and antisemitic, stating that “what she's doing is evil,” which made me want to leave immediately. I stayed only because, upon entering, security checked me five times and armed men were stationed in front of me, with one armed man on stage. Inside the church, the speaker spoke repeatedly about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, framing them as evil and antisemitic. He indirectly urged support for Israel by saying “Jesus was a Jew” and that “we wouldn’t have Christianity without Judaism,” among other claims. I disagree with the framing that Christians should support “this evil doing because these people are Jewish,” which I found to be wrong. The speaker also seemed to echo comments about Camille Owens and Charlie Cook, noting that Cook had started to question Israel in the weeks before his passing, and that Camille Owens was his best friend. The preaching itself did not feel like preaching; it was characterized by name-calling and a focus on the left, with terms like “left idiots” and “freaks.” I questioned whether this approach aligned with biblical teaching, recalling that Jesus “ate with sinners” and “prostitutes,” and worried that spreading hate through the stage and by the audience—especially teenagers—was shaping a future generation of Christians toward division. The event left me uneasy about the message being delivered, as it centered on denigrating those with political disagreements rather than focusing on shared faith. The speaker labeled the left as inferior and spent the majority of the time criticizing liberals, rather than addressing important Christian issues. By the end, I felt I hadn’t learned anything substantive. The discussion emphasized partisan conflict and broad generalizations about the left, rather than focusing on constructive biblical or political principles. In addition to the ideological focus, I noted the security environment with armed guards and an armed figure on stage, which contributed to an overall sense of unease. The speaker’s emphasis on opposing the left and on contentious topics like men in women’s sports and bathrooms framed as political talking points, rather than pressing concerns central to Christian discourse.

Candace Owens: Shabbat shalom and Hanukkah wishes. Israel has a right to defend itself. Then she riffs about Tucker Carlson and TikTok, but shifts to recount of a four-and-a-half hour meeting with Turning Point USA, Erica, Justin Streiff, and others to address questions and concerns. Candace Owens: She emphasizes she invited Erica and others to answer questions, noting there were no rules in the room for that four-and-a-half hour session; the aim was to get clear answers and understand what Turning Point USA could or could not disclose. She describes the participants: Justin Streiff, Erica, George for part of it, her cousin Mia for vibes, and later George leaving. She explains her goal was to determine why Turning Point USA hadn’t answered basic questions and to address what she saw as miscommunications and lies. Candace Owens: Erica owned apparent lies or miscommunications early in the discussion, explaining that 650 employees can be emotional and that messages circulating on Twitter didn’t always reflect management’s communications. She references a prior interview with Glenn Beck and a viral clip about Charlie’s phone, clarifying Erica looked at Charlie’s iMessages and found he used Signal and Telegram, not regular texting. Andrew Kolbet (Kolbet) told her that Andrew did receive a message the night before the shooting saying “they’re going to kill me,” and she notes that Dan Flood received a similar message; she cautions about confirming the exact wording for Dan’s message. Candace Owens: She contends that some content from Barry Weiss’s interview was planned and not random, and that Barry Weiss asked questions that were directed; Erica said she knew the general idea but not the exact Candace Owens question. Candace maintains she did not recant her suspicions and lists concerns about specific Turning Point USA figures: Terrell Farnsworth allegedly lied about camera disruptions; Blake Neff and Mikey McCoy’s call logs were discussed, with Candace blaming Terrell’s actions and questioning the credibility of Tyler Boyer and Rob McCoy. She notes Rob McCoy does not work for Turning Point USA, contradicting the sense that he was “America’s pastor” at Memorial and that his Wikipedia entry had been updated accordingly. Candace Owens: She discusses the “magic bullet” and the texting around Charlie Kirk’s shooting. She recounts Andrew Kolbet’s claim that a surgeon stated the bullet should have gone through Charlie and could have killed those behind him; she emphasizes Andrew went to the surgeon and claimed permission to post but acknowledges questions about HIPAA. She notes investigators later indicated the surgeon didn’t know Andrew before the tweet, and that Kolbet’s post reflected an unverified account. Candace Owens: She describes the security around the event, the involvement of Brian Harpole in interviews (Sean Ryan) and a lack of certainty about whether he still works with Turning Point USA. She says that investigators are in an ongoing process, that no one from Turning Point USA or Erica has seen new evidence beyond what the public has, and that an May probable cause hearing will reveal concrete evidence. She criticizes media narratives that declare “the evidence is overwhelming” and argues for a cautious, transparent approach, acknowledging she had pressed for more concrete proof before publicly asserting involvement of specific individuals. Candace Owens: She reveals she asked for Mikey McCoy’s logs and confirms Mikey’s real name, sharing that Mikey called his wife first, then his father, and only later added Erica to the call, with subsequent calls involving his brother. She notes Blake Neff’s call with his mother and the timeline around the shooting, addressing discrepancies in various retellings and emphasizing the need for accuracy in call logs. Candace Owens: She mentions the Hamptons retreat and alleged lies, referencing Seth Dillon’s confrontation with Charlie Kirk and concerns about funding offers from BB Netanyahu to take Turning Point USA to the next level, which she says Erica denied knowing about, while noting multiple sources confirmed the offer. She clarifies she never asserted a $150,000,000 figure, only that there were discussions about taking Turning Point to the next level and that the offer’s gravity raises questions. Candace Owens: She returns to Egyptian planes, promising an upcoming interactive timeline on her site showing planes’ patterns and how they tie to Israel, arguing this is part of the broader pattern they are following. She notes that planes regularly fly in and out of Israel with transponders off, and she plans to present this evidence tomorrow, inviting scrutiny of those planes’ activity. Candace Owens: The segment ends with a tease about presenting the Egyptian planes evidence and transitions to sponsor mentions.