Candace Owens

[palestine]

Been following Mrs. Candace for a while now ,and grown somewhat fond of her brave stances not sure she feels the same way now , she´s been vocal in some of her episodes about not trusting government, and her recent exposure to the whole Charlie Kirk assassination and coverup looks like to have had a reinforcing effect of such a perspective. As others on this thread have written , remains to be seen how deep into the rabbit hole she is willing to go though ( to use a common expression) .

I was pondering if she was even truly aware that she was under an active pressuring program (per the tweets "we got to get rid of her" etc).

I believe that she figured out that something was off/wrong, during those last years - but the programs could be subtle so as to remain very concealed. Could be difficult than to assert "I am a targeted individual". Odd things happen, etc - but the perpetrators could be very hidden.

- either she "knew" - but she couldn't talk about it for various reasons
- either she did not know "for sure" (see above take, it's subtle, concealed etc), and today, she just took note that she was indeed a target. In this case, "she may be connecting some dots" - and thus "toning down" a little bit would be the result of it. In this case, she would be suspecting that C.K. was, too, under such a program, too.

Attack management:
- On another hand, she has been so much front line that it would be strategic, too, than to get a bit of rope
- Last hypothesis: she went too much front and she has to give a little rope.

Seconding your thoughts about her (and the ones of other forum members): Candace Owens is very brave, has been very brave. She is a real archetype! She is very inspiring, for people to be their best.

I believe that here stance is solid because it's basic. It would be about "if you do crime - it's criminal - it's wrong". She would be caring for this specific "location". Something akin to "you did wrong, I am merely pointing out the basics". She reminds us about the basics.

 

[Beau]

Candace questions making Erica Kirk the TPUSA CEO so soon after Kirk's murder. She makes good points here, but what I found more interesting was all the people commenting who are noticing Erica's odd behavior post-assassination.

 

[Jenn]

Baron Coleman made a good point the other day, it was said (somewhere?) that Charlie willed Erika TPUSA. However, there are 4 other board members and they could all vote Erika Kirk off the board tomorrow. It was never Charlie's company, and it's not Erika's company now, but the general idea is that she's the boss.

Maybe this was a strategic move on the part of TPUSA- encourage Erika to adopt the CEO role so that they could hide behind "don't ask a grieving widow questions", if so, it's not working out so well.

(Added: this is what I'm wondering, Coleman didn't suggest that).

 

[Charade]

Candace questions making Erica Kirk the TPUSA CEO so soon after Kirk's murder. She makes good points here, but what I found more interesting was all the people commenting who are noticing Erica's odd behavior post-assassination.

OMG the comments on Russell Brand’s open shirt are priceless. I was laughing out loud. Yeah I thought it was an inappropriate look.

 

[Cosmos]

Baron Coleman made a good point the other day, it was said (somewhere?) that Charlie willed Erika TPUSA. However, there are 4 other board members and they could all vote Erika Kirk off the board tomorrow. It was never Charlie's company, and it's not Erika's company now, but the general idea is that she's the boss. Maybe this was a strategic move on the part of TPUSA- encourage Erika to adopt the CEO role so that they could hide behind "don't ask a grieving widow questions", if so, it's not working out so well.

If memory serves right the idea that Kirk wanted Erika to take over and/or be the main person in the will in regards to what happens with TPUSA in case something happens to him was suggested/implied in the following way:

High ranking people at TPUSA said on a number of occasions something like “Kirk made it very clear to us that he wants Erika to take over in case something happens to him“. Those are some of the same people of whom I‘m in agreement with Candace that they have shown quite some strange/untrustworthy behaviors since the assassination.

I can’t remember seeing or hearing anything really specific about that from Erika herself though nor some concrete proof of such claims.

Now I would think it might be likely that Kirk actually said something like that and also that he put something like that in the will, not only for Erikas sake but also for his children. That would be quite logical even if we go full conspiracy mode and entertain the idea that he started to mistrust his wife (for valid or invalid reasons). But we don’t really know if it is actually the case or not that he wanted something that in his last days and/or put it in his will?

Be it as it may, I also increasingly find Erikas behavior quite a bit strange and irritating. I also noticed something that looks to me like she is enjoying wealth and stuff like that quite a bit.

I also noticed in one of the last episodes that Candace seemed quite a bit distressed about what she is coming across in her research while she said she had to cry quite a bit the night before. When she tried to sort of explain what it is she was/is so upset about while noticeably getting shaky in her voice she didn’t quite say what is up. She just repeated that it is/would be very dark.

From the context though, it seems to me that Candace might be thinking that something like the following was going on:

TPUSA and possibly even Erika herself were in involved in child trafficking possibly for pretty dark stuff. And that this might be part of what Kirk discovered in his last days. That is just my wild speculation though.

 

[luc]

Be it as it may, I also increasingly find Erikas behavior quite a bit strange and irritating. I also noticed something that looks to me like she is enjoying wealth and stuff like that quite a bit.

My take so far, given what the Cs have said ("a bit shady"), is that she isn't necessary the evil psychopath some people think she is, but just, as you said, materialistic, ambitious to climb society etc. This means a truth teller she is not, she's probably more concerned with her standing in "high society", her image and so on. That's why she's been playing it safe for some time.

I also suspect she was a great support for Charlie as long as he was climbing the ladder (he was very ambitious himself), but that she didn't particularly like the direction he was going in at the end, because she must have known this can only lead to them losing a lot of support and standing, and even upending their whole life (losing most of their "friends", becoming outcasts in their former circles etc.) . Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think she was part of the "betrayal", except perhaps in a more spiritual way, as sort of part of the general law trying to pull Charlie back in.

 

[Cosmos]

My take so far, given what the Cs have said ("a bit shady"), is that she isn't necessary the evil psychopath some people think she is, but just, as you said, materialistic, ambitious to climb society etc. This means a truth teller she is not, she's probably more concerned with her standing in "high society", her image and so on. That's why she's been playing it safe for some time.

I also suspect she was a great support for Charlie as long as he was climbing the ladder (he was very ambitious himself), but that she didn't particularly like the direction he was going in at the end, because she must have known this can only lead to them losing a lot of support and standing, and even upending their whole life (losing most of their "friends", becoming outcasts in their former circles etc.) . Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think she was part of the "betrayal", except perhaps in a more spiritual way, as sort of part of the general law trying to pull Charlie back in.

Good bet, IMO.