Brandon Camping

Tucker acting like he doesn’t know who @ConceptualJames is, is hilariously disingenuous. My wife and I had dinner with Tucker 2 years ago where we all talked about James. Tucker is familiar with the hoax papers and the work James has done combatting the woke left; which Tucker likes about James. He’s also familiar with James’ criticisms of Christian Nationalism and the fact that James isn’t a Christian; which he sees as a problem. Hence why James hasn’t and won’t be asked to be on Tucker’s show. This performance is so fake and gay.

What a misleading headline from The Daily Mail. The ATF ran a tool mark analysis on a bullet jacket fragment recovered from Charlie's autopsy. The result was "inconclusive" — not "no match." The jacket was too fragmented to compare, which also partially explains the lack of an exit wound. The bullet shattered on impact. "Inconclusive" means insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion. It doesn't mean the bullet "did NOT match" the rifle like the headline says. The defense wants to use "inconclusive" as exculpatory evidence — but the prosecution wants to run chemical or molecular analysis comparing the jacket alloy to ammunition recovered with the gun. Unlike tool mark analysis, it doesn't require an intact bullet. The defense is trying to block that testing from happening. That's the nuance of the real story.

🤣😂🙌🔥

🚨BREAKING🚨 TE Caleb Camping has committed to Arizona State, @Hayesfawcett3 reports 🔱 Read: on3.com/rivals/news/ar…

Oh, look who just joined IDI’s Board of Advisors. How great is it to have direct access to @ConceptualJames’s insights. The man who turned out to be right about everything 💪🔥 @idicenter

Donut Labs is just another Theranos.

You might not remember it, but when Woke Left was rising back in the late 2010s, the Woke Left journalists, mouthpieces, surrogates, and grifters would push the lines and somehow, mysteriously do crazy numbers on here every time. They were manufacturing the image of consensus. Now we're seeing exactly the same thing but from the Woke Right op. People are falling for it almost the same in some sectors but less. Some of us learned to spot propaganda and social media manipulation and don't fall for that crap now. Lots of us also have actual principles and don't get swayed by the faked appearance of popularity.

This is classic Critical Theory aufheben der Kultur. They target an important cultural icon with the goal of starting a fight. You and others say how it's a Christian allegory, and then they talk about orcs and magic to counter, and then people aren't so sure anymore.

Way too many libertarians hate government more than they love freedom.

💯🎯

One of my favorite parts of this picture of me is who I was sitting next to when it was taken.

Candace just responded after I exposed Joe Kent for being the one to leak the viral screenshots to her. In classic Candace fashion, she accidentally admitted an even more shocking truth! Not only had they not known each other before. Joe Kent, while acting as the head of counterterrorism, actively sought her out to push the narrative that Israel was behind Charlie Kirk’s murder. She tried to deflect by highlighting “the texts weren’t sent with the goal of insinuating Erika Kirk”. Of course they weren’t! They were sent to insinuate Israel, which is the entire grift for these clickbait seeking conspiracy theory pushers like Joe, Candace, and Tucker. I wish I could say I’m surprised. Watch my full response to Candace here -> youtu.be/cbHKG5Hmbg0?si… #trending #news

Woke Right is basically socially conservative socialism. Ironically, it's just as progressive as the Woke Left, but by different means.

Podcastistan is the enemy of the American people.

Tucker is going full Left convergence. It's socially conservative socialism, but don't call it "Woke" even though it literally is.

Chuck Norris hasn't died. He defeated life. RIP Chuck. Your memory will be a blessing.

💯🎯🔥

Listen you human pieces of garbage and anyone else here in the comments who wants to get this straight. First off, this isn't news. You're spreading salacious horseshit from propagandists, and we all know you're doing it on purpose and with malicious intent. That's nasty. Nasty, nasty. But now let's look at some things seriously, like you would if you had a responsible bone left in your sorry outfit. Charlie died in September of 2025. This conflict started in February 2026. Joe said this conversation happened in June 2025. Operation Midnight Hammer happened in June 2025. So we can establish that Charlie was talking to Joe in the context of Operation Midnight Hammer, but Charlie said those exact same things on camera to the world at the time. This isn't new information at all. It was always public straight from Charlie. Then Trump executed Operation Midnight Hammer, and a nervous Charlie Kirk said he supported President Trump 100%, though he didn't want a "regime-change war." He later said the operation was a success. Charlie Kirk backed President Trump 100%, even though he voiced his concerns before Trump made his decisions, both in public and in private. He supported Trump when he made these decisions and stood strongly with him, for him, and with and for the United States of America, even when he was nervous about it. Charlie's words in June of 2025 cannot be construed in any way to be applicable to the circumstances that led Trump to make these decisions in early 2026. It isn't hard to guess how Charlie would have felt about this situation, though, since he already demonstrated it for us in June last year. 1) He would be publicly and privately nervous about getting into such a war and would strongly caution against regime-change as a goal and boots on the ground as a strategy; 2) He would have voiced these concerns both on camera and in private and maintained a pro-Trump and pro-America, while "America First," messaging about the looming conflict; 3) Once things started in late February/early March, he would have backed President Trump 100% like he did on 100% of the other things he backed President Trump on 100%, 100% of the time; 4) He would have stood by the operation and President Trump's decision-making, even while voicing his anxieties, concerns, and beliefs about wanting the war/conflict to wrap up quickly and avoid boots on the ground and a deliberate strategy of regime change; 5) He would have reassured Americans that President Trump has the best intelligence, the best instincts, and the best capabilities to redefine conflict in the 21st century and to guide us through this war, consistently. To suggest anything else is to fail to have known Charlie Kirk or even to have paid attention to what he actually said in the relevant situation Kent is bringing up, standing on the silence of Charlie's coffin to do so. To tie this to Charlie's murder is nothing short of reckless and heinous, and it is likely so reckless that it will possibly interfere with bringing Charlie's murderer to justice, given the idiotic and opportunistic things he said. You are all vultures and skanks, and your judgment will be ruthless.

Fought for Canadian workers and Canadian interests on the world’s biggest podcast. Thank you @joerogan for an amazing conversation. Let’s get tariff-free trade. Sign up to watch it first: conservative.ca/cpc/sign-here-…

Tim Pool owes me hella apologies. I'm not waiting around for them, though. This is all just a really bad look for him now, and that's good enough for me.

This is the ol' Iraq playbook: On the eve of victory, have senior officials declare the injustice of the whole operation. Straight demoralization slop, at least indirectly straight from the desks and offices of our enemies. He needs to be out, so this is a good thing.