Ed Martin (intro by Charlie Kirk)

And that's probably more important than the folks up on the Hill.

And that's probably more important than the folks up on the Hill.

Well, you know, one of the aspects of, you know, weaponization is what I've been talking about with the new role. I've been on this weaponization working group.

Well, you know, one of the aspects of, you know, weaponization is what I've been talking about with the new role. I've been on this weaponization working group.

Well, you know, one of the aspects of, you know, weaponization is what I've been talking about with the new role. I've been on this weaponization working group.

Yeah, weaponization of the legal system, but really the weaponization of the law, the use of the law to hide and operate. So Wikipedia has this incredible, So 501c3, right, gets a tax benefit from We The People. It's a public benefit corporation.

Yeah, weaponization of the legal system, but really the weaponization of the law, the use of the law to hide and operate. So Wikipedia has this incredible, So 501c3, right, gets a tax benefit from We The People. It's a public benefit corporation.

Yeah, weaponization of the legal system, but really the weaponization of the law, the use of the law to hide and operate. So Wikipedia has this incredible, So 501c3, right, gets a tax benefit from We The People. It's a public benefit corporation.

You know, in the 1950s, they looked at this closely because the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation had been using their foundations and abusing it. And that's when the law first changed to have 501c3 become a tax code. It was part of the— shift, right? So the Cox report or the Reese committee or whatever it was.

You know, in the 1950s, they looked at this closely because the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation had been using their foundations and abusing it. And that's when the law first changed to have 501c3 become a tax code. It was part of the— shift, right? So the Cox report or the Reese committee or whatever it was.

You know, in the 1950s, they looked at this closely because the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation had been using their foundations and abusing it. And that's when the law first changed to have 501c3 become a tax code. It was part of the— shift, right? So the Cox report or the Reese committee or whatever it was.

But so we have this problem where these Wikipedia has all this money that they use because they're a 501c3, a nonprofit that's supposed to be for the public benefit.

But so we have this problem where these Wikipedia has all this money that they use because they're a 501c3, a nonprofit that's supposed to be for the public benefit.

But so we have this problem where these Wikipedia has all this money that they use because they're a 501c3, a nonprofit that's supposed to be for the public benefit.

I don't even know. I don't know the numbers. They pay no taxes, right? I'm not sure if they pay zero, but they probably say they pay payroll and other things. They have an answer to that, but they would be tax exempt under the code. But more importantly, they're obviously biased. They're obviously – and they're anti-Semitic is the big one, but they're obviously biased in all sorts of other ways.

I don't even know. I don't know the numbers. They pay no taxes, right? I'm not sure if they pay zero, but they probably say they pay payroll and other things. They have an answer to that, but they would be tax exempt under the code. But more importantly, they're obviously biased. They're obviously – and they're anti-Semitic is the big one, but they're obviously biased in all sorts of other ways.

I don't even know. I don't know the numbers. They pay no taxes, right? I'm not sure if they pay zero, but they probably say they pay payroll and other things. They have an answer to that, but they would be tax exempt under the code. But more importantly, they're obviously biased. They're obviously – and they're anti-Semitic is the big one, but they're obviously biased in all sorts of other ways.

In fact, as soon as I started taking them on, my Wikipedia page went even worse to hell in terms of people coming on and editing it, supposedly citizen editors. So there's bias – again, information war, right? There's bias here that is against – We the people, in my opinion, but certainly it's bias that's hidden from us because they're hiding behind the law.

In fact, as soon as I started taking them on, my Wikipedia page went even worse to hell in terms of people coming on and editing it, supposedly citizen editors. So there's bias – again, information war, right? There's bias here that is against – We the people, in my opinion, but certainly it's bias that's hidden from us because they're hiding behind the law.

In fact, as soon as I started taking them on, my Wikipedia page went even worse to hell in terms of people coming on and editing it, supposedly citizen editors. So there's bias – again, information war, right? There's bias here that is against – We the people, in my opinion, but certainly it's bias that's hidden from us because they're hiding behind the law.