dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Anonymous ID: e037d5 Sept. 21, 2025, 8:15 a.m. No.23632135 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2139 >>2142

The CHARLIE KIRK file

Charles James Kirk (October 14, 1993 – September 10, 2025) was an American right-wing political activist, author, and media personality. He co-founded the conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) in 2012 and was its executive director. He was the chief executive officer (CEO) of Turning Point Action (TPAction) and a member of the Council for National Policy (CNP). The Washington Post described him as "one of the most prominent voices on the right" in his later years.[2]

Kirk was born and raised in the Chicago suburbs of Arlington Heights and Prospect Heights, Illinois. In high school, Kirk actively engaged in politics, supporting Republican candidateMark Kirk(no relation) and his U.S. Senate campaign. He briefly attended Harper College before dropping out to pursue political activism full-time, influenced by Tea Party member Bill Montgomery. In 2012, Kirk founded TPUSA, a conservative student organization that quickly grew with backing from donors likeFoster Friess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk

FOSTER FRIESS

In addition to Santorum's faith, opposition to women’s abortion rights, and hawkish foreign policy leanings, the possibility of defeating incumbent President Barack Obama was a major component of Friess's decision to back Santorum's campaign.[27] Friess reportedly considered major contributions to American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie and formerGeorge W. Bush White House strategist Karl Rove.[28][29]

Friess also donated $100,000 to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to help defeat the Democrats' recall effort in 2011. He reportedly invested more than $3 million in conservative commentatorTucker Carlson'sThe Daily Caller website.[22] At one of the semi-annual, private seminars held by the Koch brothers in June 2011, Friess was recognized for his donation exceeding $1 million to theKochs'political activities.[30]

While being interviewed by NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell regarding contraception, Friess said, "And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's so – it's such – inexpensive, you know, back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."[25][31] Friess later apologized for the comment. [32]

Friess was also an advisor to Turning Point USA, a conservative youth organization to which he donated seed money.[33]

In October 2017, Friess said he was exploring a possible candidacy for the Senate challenging Wyoming Senator John Barrasso for the Republican nomination,[34] at the request ofSteve Bannon.[35] However, in April 2018, he instead decided to enter the crowded Republican field to replace term-limited Governor Matt Mead. Friess was defeated in the primary, coming in second to State Treasurer Mark Gordon by 38,951 votes (33%) to 29,842 (25.3%).[35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_Friess

MARK KIRK

Early life and education

Kirk as president ofSeal and Serpentin 1981.

Kirk was born in Champaign, Illinois, the son of Judith Ann (Brady) and Francis Gabriel "Frank" Kirk.[7][8] After graduating from New Trier East High School in 1977 he attended Blackburn College in Carlinville, Illinois, for two years, before briefly attending the Autonomous University of Mexico[9] and subsequently transferring to Cornell University, where he graduated cum laude with a B.A. in History.[10] While at Cornell University, Kirk served as the president of The Seal and Serpent Society.[11] Kirk later obtained a master's degree from the London School of Economics and a Juris Doctor (J.D.) fromGeorgetown University Law Center.[12][13]

Tenure During his time in the House, Kirk compiled a centrist voting record, tending to vote more liberally on social issues and more conservatively on foreign policy issues.[17]

Kirk was a member of the HouseIran Working Group the founder and co-chair of the House U.S.-China Working Group**,[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kirk

China Working Group

Select Members (as of 23 Nov 2024)

Judy Chu CA-27

James Clyburn SC-06

Sheila Jackson Lee TX-18

Adam Schiff CA-28

Bennie Thompson MS-02

Maxine Waters CA-43

Former members include:

Mark Kirk, former co-chair

Michele Bachmann

Tim Walz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93China_Working_Group

CHARLIE KIRK' deep state connections tie directly to the UNITED STATES-CHINA WORKING GROUP… Current members ADAM SCHIFF, MAXINE WATERS… Former member TIM WALZ….

Anonymous ID: e037d5 Sept. 21, 2025, 8:16 a.m. No.23632139 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2142 >>2158

>>23632135

United States–China Working Group

The U.S.-China Working Group (USCWG) is a bipartisan working group in the United States House of Representatives.

Created in June 2005[1] byRep. Mark Kirkand Rep. Rick Larsen, it seeks to "build diplomatic relations with China and educate Members of Congress through meetings and briefings with business, academic and political leaders from the U.S. and China."[2]

Purpose

The purpose of the group is to provide accurate information to members of Congress on critical issues and provide a forum for discussion with Chinese leaders. Membership in the group does not imply taking a position on issues.[3]

Members (as of 23 Nov 2024)

Judy Chu CA-27

James Clyburn SC-06

Gerry Connolly VA-11

Debbie Dingell MI-12

Brian Fitzpatrick PA-01

Virginia Foxx NC-05

Sam Graves MO-06

French Hill AR-02

Sheila Jackson Lee TX-18

Hank Johnson GA-04

Mike Kelly PA-16

Derek Kilmer WA-06

Darin LaHood IL-16 Co-Chair

Rick Larsen WA-02 Co-Chair

Frank Lucas OK-03

Cathy McMorris Rodgers WA-05

Dan Meuser PA-09

Carol Miller WV-03

Ralph Norman SC-05

Stacey E. Plaskett VI-At Large

Mike Quigley IL-05

Guy Reschenthaler PA-14

Dutch Ruppersberger MD-02

Gregorio Sablan MP-At Large

Linda Sanchez CA-38

Adam Schiff CA-28

Bennie Thompson MS-02

Nydia Velazquez NY-07

Maxine Waters CA-43

Former members

Earl Blumenauer

Adam Smith

Jim Cooper

Bobby Rush

Gabby Giffords

Jay Inslee

Mark Kirk, former co-chair

Randy Kuhl

Nancy Johnson

Chris Cannon

Mike Rogers

Carolyn Maloney

Fred Upton

Rob Simmons

Joe Schwartz

David Wu

Ed Case

Sherwood Boehlert

Heather Wilson

Charlie Bass

Mark Kennedy

Charles Boustany

Donald Manzullo

Roscoe Bartlett

Phil Gingrey

Charlie Dent

Dan Burton

Todd Platts

Mike Conaway

Geoff Davis

Chip Cravaack

Dennis Rehberg

Randy Neugebauer

Aaron Schock

Todd Young

Peter Roskam

Michele Bachmann

Dave Reichert

Brian Bilbray

Tom Price

Erik Paulsen

Leonard Lance

Robert Dold

Steve Israel

Joseph Crowley

Madeleine Bordallo

Rush Holt Jr.

Colleen Hanabusa

Loretta Sanchez

Mike Honda

Norm Dicks

Mike Michaud

Jim Moran

Ben Chandler

Susan Davis

Chris Van Hollen

Jim McDermott

Ruben Hinojosa

Shelley Berkley

Edward Markey

Tim Walz

Jim Matheson

Anonymous ID: e037d5 Sept. 21, 2025, 8:16 a.m. No.23632142 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2159

>>23632139

>>23632135

Cardinal Dolan: Charlie Kirk Is a ‘Modern Day Saint Paul’19 Sep 2025

Friday on FNC’s “Fox & Friends,” Cardinal Timothy Dolan said the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was a “modern day St Paul.”

Dolan said, “When I heard the tragic news, I said, I wonder who he was. And then all of a sudden, there’s overwhelming, this overwhelming sense of sorrow and kind of renewal and. And I thought, I got to learn about this guy. And the more I learned about him, I thought, this guy’s a modern day Saint Paul. He was a missionary. He’s an evangelist. He’s a hero. He’s one, I think that knew what Jesus meant when he said, the truth will set you free. And to do it. No, I understand he was pretty blunt and he was pretty direct. He didn’t try to avoid any controversy. He didn’t even try to avoid confrontation. The difference is the way the mode, the style that he did it always with respect.”

He added, “And not only was that a gracious, kind of virtuous thing to do, it’s effective because when your opponents see this guy kind of respects me. We kind of disagree here, but, he kind of enjoys me, and he’s thanking me for being here, and he’s telling me he’s he appreciates the trust I have in him and sharing my views. I thought, this guy can teach us something.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/09/19/cardinal-dolan-charlie-kirk-is-a-modern-day-saint-paul/

Anonymous ID: e037d5 Sept. 21, 2025, 8:16 a.m. No.23632143 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2146 >>2174

Charlie Kirk had 'good shot' of being president one day, Trump says

President Donald Trump closed his opening remarks at a press conference with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer by commenting on the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

September 18, 2025

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/charlie-kirk-good-shot-president-day-trump-125703876

Anonymous ID: e037d5 Sept. 21, 2025, 8:17 a.m. No.23632148 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2151 >>2157

Trump tariffs: What happens next after court rules them illegal? part 1 AUG 30 2025

A federal appeals court has ruled that most of Donald Trump's tariffs are an overreach of his use of emergency powers as president.

The so-called reciprocal tariffs - imposed on nearly every country the US trades with - are being illegally imposed, the US Court of Appeals said on Friday.

The decision upholds a ruling in May from the Court of International Trade, which also rejected Trump's argument that his global tariffs were permitted under an emergency economic powers act.

Many of the tariffs that would be affected by the ruling stem from an announcement in April of a flat 10% rate on imports from all countries, which Trump said would even out "unfair" trade relations with the US.

The court did not halt the tariffs but instead said they would remain in place until mid-October, setting up a further legal challenge in the US Supreme Court.

There are still a lot of unknowns, but here's what we understand so far about the ruling - and what it could mean for the US president's flagship policy.

What did the appeals court say?

In its 7-4 decision, the appellate court backed a lower court's finding that Trump did not have the authority to impose global tariffs.

This was largely because of the law Trump used to justify the policies, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the judges said did not grant "the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax".

The US Court of Appeals rejected Trump's argument that the tariffs were permitted under his emergency economic powers, calling the levies "invalid as contrary to law".

Trump immediately criticised the judgement, taking to Truth Social in the hours after it landed to call the appeals court "highly partisan" and the ruling a "disaster" for the country.

"If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America," he wrote.

What is the IEEPA?'''

The decades-old act, which has repeatedly been deployed by Trump during both his terms in office, grants a US president significant authority to respond to a national emergency or a major threat from overseas.

The 1977 law states that a president can pull a number of economic levers "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy or economy".

It's been used by both Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who invoked the act to impose sanctions on Russia after the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, and then again after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine eight years later.

But the appeals court stated in its decision that the emergency law "did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs".

The IEEPA "neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the president's power to impose tariffs", they said.

Trump argued when he unveiled his global tariffs that a trade imbalance was harmful to US national security, and was therefore a national emergency.

But the court ruled that imposing tariffs is not within the president's mandate, and "the power of the purse (including the power to tax) belongs to Congress".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy983g8jr5do

Anonymous ID: e037d5 Sept. 21, 2025, 8:17 a.m. No.23632151 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2152 >>2157

>>23632148

Trump tariffs: What happens next after court rules them illegal? part 2

Why is this important?'''

Beyond being a significant setback to a centrepiece of Trump's agenda, the federal appeals court ruling could have an immediate impact on the US economy, with knock-on effects felt in global markets.

Tariffs are taxes companies have to pay for importing certain goods from foreign countries - so they can have an affect on sales and profit margins.

"Businesses are going to be subject to uncertainty," Dr Linda Yueh, an economist at Oxford University and the London Business School, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Tariffs are aimed at deterring domestic firms from buying foreign goods, in turn affecting international trade.

As countries wait to see if the US Supreme Court will take up the case - which seems likely - they could decide to hold off on conducting business with the US.

If this happens, Dr Yueh said, it could "dampen down economic activity".

There are also significant ramifications that could be felt within the political sphere.

For instance, if the Supreme Court reverses the federal appeals court decision and sides with the Trump administration, it could set a precedent that emboldens the president to use the IEEPA more aggressively than he has done so far.

What happens next?

The case will now most likely proceed to the highest US court, a challenge that Trump signalled on Truth Social.

"Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians," Trump wrote. "Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again!"

The conservative majority on the US Supreme Court could potentially make it more likely to side with the president's view.

Six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents, including three who Trump selected during his first term in the White House.

But the court has also been more critical of presidents when it seems they're overreaching on policies not directly authorised by Congress.

During Joe Biden's presidency, for example, the court expanded on what it called the "major questions doctrine" to invalidate Democratic efforts to use existing laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions by power plants and to forgive student loan debt for millions of Americans.

What if the tariffs are ruled illegal?

The federal appeals court was divided 7-4 in its decision that Trump's nearly universal tariffs are illegal. It has now given the US administration until mid-October to appeal to the US Supreme Court on a case with implications for both the US economy and its trade relationship with the rest of the world.

If the Supreme Court affirms the decision, it could trigger uncertainty in financial markets.

There will be questions over whether the US will have to pay back billions of dollars that have been gathered by import taxes on products.

It could also throw into question whether major economies - including the UK, Japan and South Korea - are locked into the individual trade deals they secured with the US ahead of the August deadline. Other trade deals currently being negotiated could also be thrown into chaos.

If allowed to stand, the appeals court decision would also be a tremendous blow to Trump's political authority and reputation as a dealmaker. But if it were overturned by the Supreme Court, it would have the opposite effect.

Are there still tariffs in place?

This ruling affects Trump's "reciprocal tariffs", which includes a patchwork of different rates on most countries around the world, including taxes slapped on products from China, Mexico and Canada.

Those levies on nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the US conducts trade will remain in place until mid-October.

After 14 October, they will no longer be enforceable, the appeals court has said.

Separately, the tariffs on steel, aluminum and copper, which were brought in under a different presidential authority, will remain intact and unaffected by the court's ruling.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy983g8jr5do

Anonymous ID: e037d5 Sept. 21, 2025, 8:18 a.m. No.23632152 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2153 >>2157

>>23632151

Trump tariffs: What happens next after court rules them illegal? Aug 30 2025

A federal appeals court has ruled that most of Donald Trump's tariffs are an overreach of his use of emergency powers as president.

BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy983g8jr5do

Most Trump tariffs ruled illegal by appeals court, dealing major blow to trade policy Aug 30 2025

A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Donald Trump's global tariffs are illegal, striking a massive blow to the core of his…

CNBC - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/trump-trade-tariffs-appeals-court-ieepa.html

Governor Newsom issues statement on court decision AGAIN ruling Trump’s tariffs as unlawful Aug 30 2025

What you need to know: Once again, a court ruled that Trump's tariffs are unlawful. SACRAMENTO — Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following…

California State Portal (.gov) - https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/08/29/governor-newsom-issues-statement-on-court-decision-again-ruling-trumps-tariffs-as-unlawful/

Bessent Warns of US ‘Embarrassment’ If Tariffs Ruled Illegal Aug 30 2025

Trump cabinet officials told a federal appeals court that ruling the president's global tariffs illegal would seriously harm US foreign…

Bloomberg.com - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-29/bessent-lutnick-urge-appeals-court-to-pause-any-order-against-trump-s-tariffs

Here’s what to know about the court ruling striking down Trump’s tariffs Aug 30 2025

A federal appeals court said the president overstepped his authority when he imposed sweeping import duties.

The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/30/trump-tariffs-explainer

Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs Invalidated by Appeals Court Aug 30 2025

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that many of President Trump's most punishing tariffs were illegal, delivering a major setback to…

The New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/29/business/economy/trump-tariffs-appeals-court.html

An appeals court said Trump couldn’t levy his tariffs. What happens now? Aug 30 2025

Despite the ruling, the appellate judges let President Donald Trump's tariffs stand to allow time for a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme…

The Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/08/30/trump-tariffs-court-ruling-explained/

Most of President Trump's tariffs are illegal, U.S. court rules Aug 30 2025

An appeals court ruled that most of President Trump's tariffs are illegal — but held off on enforcing the decision until mid-October,…

NPR - https://www.npr.org/2025/08/29/nx-s1-5522457/tariffs-trump-trade-supreme-court

Trump blasts court's ruling that most of his tariffs are illegal Aug 30 2025

Trump blasts court's ruling that most of his tariffs are illegal. Former Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg joins 'Fox & Friends…

Fox News - https://www.foxnews.com/video/6377798933112

Trump’s global tariffs are unlawful, appeals court says Aug 30 2025

A federal appeals court has ruled that most of President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs are unlawful, potentially dealing a…

ABC News - https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-global-tariffs-unlawful-appeals-court/story?id=125110624

Anonymous ID: e037d5 Sept. 21, 2025, 8:18 a.m. No.23632153 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2155 >>2157

>>23632152

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115124685956430001

Without Tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed, and our military power would be instantly obliterated.

In a 7 to 4 Opinion, a Radical Left group of judges didn’t care, but one Democrat,Obama appointed, actually voted to save our Country.

I would like to thank him for his Courage!

He loves and respects the U.S.A.

Aug 31, 2025, 2:01 PM

What happens next after Trump tariffs ruled illegal?Aug 31 2025

A federal appeals court has ruled that most of Donald Trump's tariffs are an overreach of his use of emergency powers as president.

The so-called reciprocal tariffs - imposed on nearly every country the US trades with - are being illegally imposed, the US Court of Appeals said on Friday.

The decision upholds a ruling in May from the Court of International Trade, which also rejected Trump's argument that his global tariffs were permitted under an emergency economic powers act.

Many of the tariffs that would be affected by the ruling stem from an announcement in April of a flat 10% rate on imports from all countries, which Trump said would even out "unfair" trade relations with the US.

The court did not halt the tariffs but instead said they would remain in place until mid-October, setting up a further legal challenge in the US Supreme Court.

There are still a lot of unknowns, but here's what we understand so far about the ruling - and what it could mean for the US president's flagship policy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy983g8jr5do

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114593880455063168

The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade.

Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America?

Is it purely a hatred of “TRUMP?” What other reason could it be?

I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I useThe Federalist Societyas a recommending source on Judges.

I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb ofa real “sleazebag” named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.

He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court — I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is!

In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own “thing.” I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations.

This is something that cannot be forgotten!With all of that being said, I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others.

They always must do what’s right for the Country!

In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get.

It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite. The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political!

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse thishorrible, Country threateningdecision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.

Backroom “hustlers” must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!

The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs.

In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly.

If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same! This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America.

Radical Left Judges, together with some very bad people, are destroying America. Under this decision, Trillions of Dollars would be lost by our Country, money that will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

It would be the harshest financial ruling ever leveled on us as a Sovereign Nation. The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

May 29, 2025, 8:10 PM

Anonymous ID: e037d5 Sept. 21, 2025, 8:18 a.m. No.23632155 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>2157

>>23632153

Timeline - May 29 2025

POTUS calls Clarence Thomas' best friend, Roman Catholic Knight of Malta (Vatican) crusader and Supreme Court "King Maker",Leonard Leo, who previously worked at the Federalist Society, a "Sleazebag" who "probably hates America".

POTUS admits that his Past Advisors advised him to accept the bad advice of the Legal Team at the Federalist Society and that he accepted their advice "openly and freely".

POTUS goes on to call these people "Backroom "Hustlers" " and that they "must not be allowed to destroy our Nation".

POTUS says that he is "very disappointed in others." meaning that many judges that the Trump admin had seated, "more than any other", are enemies of POTUS and MAGA because of Leonard Leo and the Fine people at the Federalist Society.

POTUS goes on to say that"This is something that cannot be forgotten!".

Who are the Bad Past Advisors who "suggested"/advised POTUS to listen to Leonard Leo and the Lawyers at the Federalist Society?

Here is the POTUS Truth post in question: