My knowledge of either party is based on my research and my conclusions from that research. Until I did that research I did not know who Kirk was and I did not know he was close friends with Candace Owens. I've only recently discovered Candace Owens and that was via her 'Becoming Brigitte' series. Since discovering them, I have watched a ton of videos from their shows and also videos detailing their lives and backgrounds. My only personal connection to the Kirks is an American friend from the parish who has friends who know them and say they are lovely, friendly, genuine people who have been attending Mass regularly as a family leading up to Charlie's murder.
Your mindset amazes me. You actually go looking for conspiracy's behind every single innocent remark. I'm defending Kirk and Candace because you - and many here - are trashing their names without any evidence. You are literally making it up based on your twisted compulsion to make a conspiracy out of everything and everyone. You cannot even make a basic comment without being rude. And if I merely present you with contrary information (eg. that Candace has a happy marriage and mixes with nice people) in response to the unfounded trash that she is "a nasty woman" and "any husband's worst nighmare", you accuse me of being deceitful and a "blabber-mouth lair".
What is our rule of thumb as Catholics? To always think the best of people unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary. And even then, we should pray for their conversion and treat their names respectfully - 'there goes I but for the grace of God'. I may not have intimate knowledge of Candace or Kirk but neither do you. And all external evidence supports that these are two converts who had/were in the process of, waking up to the enemies using them. They should be applauded, not condemned.
As for yourself, I would advise you go on an Ignatian Retreat and stay away from Social Media for a while. The very fact you now think I'm "a pro (meaning she is being paid to play this role). She is not just some overly-emotional British homeschooling mom who loves dogs and horses. She is an influencer paid by the same people who fund TurningPoint" - after I've been accused of being the lawyer John Salza and even a secret SSPX priest, is - I'm laughing so much I can't even think of an adjective to adequately describe such crazy paranoid thinking.
Please, I assure you I am not a spy (sorry to disappoint). I am just a normal Catholic mum - who really does love dogs and horses - and who after years and years of home-schooling, has wide and varied interests.
Thanks for finally answering my question. So, in essence, you are a Candace Owens fan, repeating everything she says as if it is the gospel truth. She is a Trump MAGA Creature influencer first and foremost.
This idolization of Owens would explain why you regurgitate every talking point she says. So, in my defense, Candace is a "pro (meaning she is being paid to play this role)" and because you regurgitate her every word, maybe you can understand why I said what I said about you. You sound just like her.
Having said that, I apologize that I said you were being paid to say what you said. You apparently didn't say those things because you were being paid, but simply because you are a sycophant of someone who is paid. Now, let's go to the heart of the matter. The fact is that you are claiming things about Charlie Kirk that the objective evidence does not support.
1. You claimed that he was converting to the Catholic faith. There is no objective evidence of that.
2. You claimed that he was no longer a tool of the zionists. There is objective evidence contrary to that in the final Charlie Kirk podcast that I posted.
I have been primarily focused on those facts. I have presented my evidence of those facts in the external forum. I said that your repetitive claims of points 1 and 2 (above), even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, was itself evidence of
either "intentional deception"
or "blabber-mouth" lying.
Why did I say that? Because you refused to address the specific points of evidence undermining your repetitious talking points. You continue to this moment to refuse to address the specific evidence presented. If you want me to think you are acting in good faith, then logically address the objective evidence and stop repetitiously emoting about "lovely families" and nonsense like that.
You have now admitted that you don't have any direct personal knowledge of private life of Candace Owens. You don't know if she and her husband "mix with nice people." You lied when you said that, didn't you? Similarly, you have made a number of unsupportable statements about Kirk and his wife. About Kirk you are at the very least exaggerating about his conversion. Exaggeration in serious matters is a form of lying. I suggest you consult a handbook of Moral Theology if you are not sure about that.
Topic: Charlie James Kirk Etymology→ Free man, supplanter, of the church. (Read 26282 times)