Candace Owens

Never forget what Candace Owens said after Charlie Kirk's death:

"We are being ruled by sadistic criminals, all of us. The whole world, every nation."

"A gang of demented psychopaths rule over us, and their solution to being caught doing psychopathic things is to murder us."

"To murder us."

"Are you going to start murdering more people in broad daylight for knowing? Is that like the slave consequence, catching a slave and cutting off their limbs for knowing that you're evil?"



Mike
 
Candace Owens does not have a cult, she has supporters. If Candace completely flipped the script and started saying she believed that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, her supporters would not follow. Because its not about Candace, it’s about what she’s doing and saying.

Unlike how Donald Trump campaigned on no new wars, and then almost immediately started a new war in the Middle East. But yet his loyalists continue to back him. That’s a cult. Because no matter how much Trump lies to you, you continue to give your undying loyalty to him.



Mike
 
🚨TERRYL FARNSWORTH🚨

I believe Farnsworth was given clear duties to fulfill that day. He had a lot of horrible things to complete. He was clearly prepared going in. My question to all of you. Who was he feverishly texting in that moment?

Who was he notifying, or who was instructing him as he was doing it while his head was spinning off because he was so concerned who was watching?

#charliekirk



Mike
 
This is how Charlie’s assassination went down.

There were two hits (This explains the signals from the security guys to do both simultaneously) the "Mic Bomb" detonated by Brian Harpole and the pistol-camera fired by Rick Cutler—who was positioned above and behind Charlie.

This would explain the holes in his neck and shirt caused by the bullet's trajectory.

A level of sophistication that confirms Mossad and CIA involvement.



Mike
 
You’re a miserable, sniveling, gutless little scumbag. A real coward.

You’ve spent years wrapping yourself in another man’s name and another man’s mission, then, the second the questions get uncomfortable, you block, run, and dig up a booking photo.

I asked you, directly and on the record, why you lied about Fort Huachuca. I asked why your name keeps showing up in the same documented patterns as Brian Harpole, Justin Davis, Jacob Reses, Bradley Hansel, Johnny Moore, and Butch Hibbs in the days immediately before Charlie Kirk was murdered. I asked why you and Erika Kirk and Gary Melton cooked up a sloppy, wrong-date “alibi” using somebody else’s children to try to discredit Mitch Snow’s testimony while you simultaneously pretended you’d never even heard of the place.

Let me make something crystal clear for you and whoever is still paying you to play spokesman: I will never have a booking photo for killing my boss. That particular honor, that particular stain, that particular smell that follows a man for the rest of his days, is not mine. I didn’t betray the man whose show I produced. I didn’t stand next to his widow while the “official” story was being assembled. I didn’t help manufacture metadata and text-message theater to give her an alibi for a military intelligence base the day before he died. I didn’t look America in the eye and call every unanswered question “conspiracy garbage” and “brain rot” while the data kept stacking up against you.

How does it feel, Andrew? How does it feel knowing the whole world is looking at you through a giant microscope and almost nobody with a functioning brain believes a single word you utter from Charlie’s desk?

You look unwell. You look beat down. You look worn out in that specific, haunted way that only happens when a man knows the walls are closing in and he has no good answers left.

Your face is inflamed, puffy, pale and blotchy, like the stress and the lies and the damage control have finally started leaking out through your filthy skin. Your head hangs. Your shoulders slump. You won’t look anyone in the eyes for more than a second because you know what they’ll see if they stare too long: a snaky, cornered little man who used to stand in Charlie Kirk’s shadow and is now slithering into something much darker.

You’re not handling this well.

You can block me. You can post old mugshots. You can hide behind the widow and the lawyers and the remaining paid loyalists. None of that changes the fact that you were asked a simple, specific question about a military intelligence installation in Arizona in the days before your boss was assassinated, and instead of answering it like a man you ran like a rat.

That’s who you are now, Andrew. That’s the version of you history is going to remember.

Sleep tight. The microscope isn’t going anywhere.



Mike
 
Just so we’re all on the same page and there’s no confusion:

* **Mikey McCoy:** Turned away less than one second after the big bang, walked away (didn’t run or appear afraid at any point), made a pit stop in front of one of the SUVs alongside another individual, then continued walking away, never looking back to assist or even figure out what had happened to Charlie.

* **Nate Walker:** Charlie Kirk’s personal assistant, roughly **105 SECONDS after the big bang**, can be seen on camera (not the blurry kind that UVU releases, either) casually walking across campus with an unreal level of everyday normalcy.

* **Unidentified African American woman:** Is seen, seemingly unafraid and disturbingly poised, recording Charlie and the path used to carry him to the SUV before walking away almost perfectly as they reach the vehicle.

* **Terrell Farnsworth:** Is seen recording himself and Charlie from a higher angle before prematurely declaring that “they” had k*lled Charlie. This all happened before he would then allegedly contaminate the crime scene and not only take the SD card, but also appear to immediately view the contents of that SD card on a laptop. This was all within the first few minutes after the big bang.

* **Out-of-uniform Utah police officer:** A confirmed out-of-uniform Utah police officer who was originally in the front row is seen recording as well, without any apparent concern for his own life, confusion, attempt to run for cover, or effort to assist others. Just...recording a particular angle.

* **The two professional cameramen:** Immediately after the big bang, the two professional cameramen present that day also appeared unafraid and poised and never stopped filming. They didn’t run, make any immediate attempt to protect their own lives, or appear overly concerned about the possibility of an active shooter.

* **Butch Hibbs:** A 74-year-old man accompanying Charlie for the first time at one of his events can also be seen, just moments after the big bang, disturbingly recording as well—to the point that he was moving toward the area people were running away from so he could record over the crowd. He didn’t appear afraid, confused, concerned about an active shooter or shooters, sad, frantic, or anything of the sort. This is the same man who just so happened to be dressed in clothing very similar to Charlie’s security detail that day...

**This is NOT an accusation of guilt. It IS an accusation of HIGHLY unusual behavior that warrants both further investigation and an explanation from these individuals.**

Did I leave out anyone else who was or seemed to be recording?

What does this picture paint for you?



Mike
 
Andrew, if you’re going to attack Candace’s investigation, attack the evidence—not her age, makeup, hair, sex or followers.

That’s not argument. It’s poisoning the well: trying to make her look vain, fake, irrational, petty and unserious so your audience dismisses her before considering her evidence. At the same time, it’s an obvious attempt to provoke and disconcert her personally.

More importantly, you accuse her of reaching conclusions before trial while repeatedly declaring Robinson “the murderer” before that same trial has taken place.

That is precisely the intellectual carelessness you’re accusing her of.

If Candace has the facts wrong, prove it. Identify the errors. Produce the contradictory evidence. Separate what is known from what you merely believe.

You’re a professional debater. Argue like one.

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES
Poisoning the well: an attempt to discredit a person’s character so the audience dismisses their argument without properly considering the evidence.

Deliberate provocation: an attempt to anger, embarrass or unsettle an opponent so they react emotionally, lose focus, and are drawn away from the substance of the argument.



Mike
 
‼️Who Is This Guy Wearing A MAROON Shirt At UVU — And WAVING Around A Liberal Tears Stanley Like Some Sort Of A Signal🧐

This man keeps turning up in the UVU footage from September 10th, and he is not blending in. He is one of the maroon shirts in the crowd that day, standing in the same pocket of video as George Zinn, and he is holding a “Liberal Tears” Stanley cup up in a long, stiff pose that does not look like a normal sip.

Watch the clips. He is not just carrying the cup. He holds it high and keeps it there, then later films himself waving that same branded Stanley straight into the lens. That is a lot of work for a water bottle. Maroon shirts clustered in that courtyard already look like a unit, not random merch. Add a prop held like a marker and you have a person investigators should be able to name.

The chest print is still unidentified. It is a white mark that reads like a backwards N. Not the Nebraska block N. If you know the brand, or you know this face, say it. Crowd-source the ID before this guy disappears back into the pile of “just a guy in the crowd.”

If you recognize him, the shirt, or the cup print, drop it. This is one of the people on camera in the minutes that still do not add up.

Shoutout to @CharlotteLee_88 For sending me this clip. Be sure to FOLLOW Her!



Mike
 

Forum statistieken

Onderwerpen
4.738
Berichten
645.000
Leden
8.712
Nieuwste lid
Suzanne1972
Word vaste donateur van dit forum
Terug
Bovenaan