January 6 was not some spontaneous uprising of grandmothers with flags. It was a federal and Democrat operation that used real patriots as props. There is so much evidence at this point that it is hard to see how anyone honestly looking at the facts can still pretend it was a “MAGA insurrection.”

Now we have a new twist. Investigative reporting alleges that the so-called “pipe bomber” may have been a former Capitol Police officer who later wound up at the CIA. At the same time, Democrats are melting down because their leadership caved on the government shutdown.

Is it better to fight or to fold

On January 6, 2021, authorities discovered two pipe bombs near the RNC and DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C. The FBI has consistently said the devices were real, contained explosive powder, and were planted the night before. To this day, the Bureau publicly claims it has not identified the suspect and is still offering a reward for information.

Those bombs became part of the emotional backdrop for branding J6 as an “insurrection.” DOJ and the January 6 Committee leaned heavily on that language, treating the entire day as proof that ordinary Trump supporters were domestic terrorists.

Yet years later, the official story has more holes than answers. The FBI has released carefully edited clips, but basic questions remain. Why did a bomb-sniffing dog on video walk right past the alleged device without reacting if this was a serious, live bomb ready to explode

Into that vacuum stepped independent investigators. Blaze Media and others have published a detailed analysis using gait, build, and insider whistleblower information alleging that the “pipe bomber” appears to match a former Capitol Police officer, Shauni Kerkhoff, who reportedly later took a position with the CIA. These reports claim a very high gait-match score between her and the bomber footage.

Let me be clear about what we know and what we do not. As of the time I am writing this, the federal government has not publicly confirmed that identity and still lists the bomber as unknown. The Blaze reporting is an allegation, backed by analysis and whistleblowers, but it is not yet a formal indictment.

Here is the point.

If you or I had been within fifty yards of that pipe bomb, we would already have been indicted and probably sitting in a cell. Hundreds of Americans have been prosecuted and imprisoned over J6, many for non-violent offenses. When the trail leads toward entrenched federal interests or connected insiders, everything slows to a crawl.

Will Pam Bondi and the current DOJ actually prosecute anyone involved in orchestrating J6 if that trail runs into the federal family itself?

So far we see a lot of noise about old villains whose power is fading. What we do not see is a serious house-cleaning of the people and agencies that engineered J6, buried the truth, and left ordinary citizens holding the bag.

After weeks of standoff, the Senate broke the deadlock with a bipartisan vote that allowed a new funding bill to move forward and a partial shutdown to end. Several Democrats crossed over and backed a deal that, among other things, extended funding at essentially flat levels and did not lock in long-term expansions of Affordable Care Act subsidies that progressives wanted.

Republicans, for their part, avoided deep cuts to veterans’ programs and SNAP while pushing the next big funding fight out to a future date, after another election cycle. The result is being spun by establishment voices as a “responsible compromise.”

On the left, activists and commentators exploded. They accused their own senators of betrayal for giving up leverage and for failing to secure permanent expansions of Obamacare-style benefits.

Here is what interests me.

Behind every shutdown fight is a basic question of character.

Do you ever use leverage or do you fold as soon as cable headlines get uncomfortable

Do you treat principles as negotiable or as the starting point that shapes which compromises are even morally possible

The conservative base is tired of “managed decline.” People do not want a party that calls itself pro-freedom, then quietly funds the permanent bureaucracy that censors them, tracks them, and forces unsafe medical products on their families.

If you want real change, you must be willing to absorb some pain, hold the line, and fight for outcomes that actually move the needle, not just for optics.

A big chunk of the episode deals with an article by a young columnist, Gregory Lyakhov, published at Gateway Pundit. He pleads with conservatives to stop “fighting on the right,” using Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson as symbols for two wings of the movement.

His basic message is that the right is tearing itself apart over Israel. He admires Shapiro’s resume and sees Tucker as authentic, and he wants everyone to get along for the sake of young conservatives.

I agree with him on one point and strongly disagree on another.

Where I agree

Where I disagree

For example, it is well documented in mainstream reporting that Israel, under Benjamin Netanyahu, allowed and even encouraged Qatar to send large amounts of cash into Gaza, money that went to Hamas-controlled institutions. At the same time, Israel cut an early, sweeping deal with Pfizer to turn the Israeli population into a high-intensity test bed for the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out, sharing health data in exchange for rapid supply.

You do not have to hate Israel or Jewish people to say that funding Hamas and forcing experimental injections on your citizens is catastrophic leadership. Many Israelis, including security and public-health experts, have voiced their own concerns and criticisms.

My position is simple:

I support the Jewish people and the right of Israel to exist and defend itself.

I do not support corrupt leadership in any country, including Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisions that have harmed his own people.

Asking hard questions about how our tax money is used and about foreign corruption is not bigotry. It is responsible citizenship.

The American conservative movement should be arguing about how to defend our Constitution, secure our borders, protect our children, and remove captured, corrupt officials. If a commentator or politician tries to shut down those questions by shouting “disloyalty,” it is fair to ask whom they really serve.

Pharma and the security state have captured the institutions that are supposed to inform and protect you.

In 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative trial reported an increased relative risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular events in older women on one specific combination of estrogen plus progestin. The absolute increase was on the order of eight extra cases of certain events per 10,000 women per year.

Media coverage and regulatory response treated this as a universal verdict against hormone therapy. For years, the FDA slapped strong boxed warnings on menopausal hormone treatments, and many women lost access to therapies that might have safely improved quality of life when tailored to age and risk.

Now, after two decades of additional data, the FDA is in the process of removing those black box warnings from many menopausal hormone products, acknowledging that the original message was overly broad and often misleading, especially for younger women near the onset of menopause.

In other words, the establishment is quietly admitting that millions of women were scared away from potentially helpful treatments because of how one study on a narrow population was spun.

That is exactly the kind of distortion I warn about when we talk about mRNA shots, regulatory capture, and “settled science.”

I also talk in the episode about hemp products and about pharmacies that offer ivermectin and fenbendazole as part of broader wellness protocols. The point is not to offer medical advice on any specific drug. People should always work with honest clinicians and understand the evidence for any therapy.

The point is this.

When a plant that has well-documented non-intoxicating uses becomes politically suspect, it is suddenly treated as more dangerous than powerful patented drugs. When cheap, off-patent molecules are explored for potential antiviral or anticancer properties, official channels rush to suppress or ridicule that discussion, even if some early data look promising.

At the same time, experimental platforms like mRNA are pushed on entire populations under emergency powers, with safety signals dismissed and liability shielded.

That is not science. That is a business model.

For years, anyone who suggested that governments were experimenting with spraying substances into the atmosphere to modify climate or weather was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Yet mainstream sources now openly discuss research programs on stratospheric aerosol injection and other geoengineering concepts, including projects funded or studied by agencies linked to the national security and defense apparatus.

What I argue is not that every condensation trail you see is a secret program. It is that:

Our government has funded research that would allow large-scale atmospheric interventions.

The same establishment that denied interest in these topics for years is now normalizing them without a transparent, democratic debate.

Once again, the pattern is secrecy first, disclosure later, accountability never.

We also talk about Senator Rand Paul’s public battles with Anthony Fauci and his new book on COVID and gain-of-function research.

Many of the facts about lab funding, EcoHealth Alliance, and U.S. involvement in risky research were available years ago. Some of us sent those materials to members of Congress well before it was politically safe to talk about them in public.

Real leadership does not wait until the polls move or the book contract is signed. Real leadership fights when it is costly, not just when it sells.

So what ties all of this together

J6 and the unresolved pipe bomber story

The shutdown “compromise” and Democrat meltdown

Infighting on the right over Israel and foreign policy

Hormone therapy, mRNA, hemp, and the capture of medicine

Geoengineering research creeping into the open

Endless talk about accountability with very few handcuffs on anyone who still holds power

It all comes back to one question.

Are we going to fight or are we going to fold?

Fighting does not mean blind rage. It does not mean attacking fellow citizens because they ask hard questions. It means:

Demanding transparent investigations of events like J6, including federal involvement.

Refusing to fund a bloated, abusive bureaucracy without real structural reform.

Insisting on honest science that distinguishes between relative risk and absolute risk, between short-term signals and long-term harm.

Putting America’s interests and liberties ahead of donor networks and foreign politicians, whatever flag they wave.

I am hard on many people, on both the left and the right, because I believe time is short. We get one more chance to turn this around. If we pick the fight and then refuse to see it through, the other side will not show mercy.

My commitment, and the commitment of my team, is to keep putting an axe in the skull of tyranny, one lie at a time, with facts, law, and courage.

Stay informed. Share the truth. And for the love of your children and grandchildren, choose to fight, not fold.

Support the show at TomRenz.com