How Candace Owens Will Expose Erika Kirk and TPUSA
|
Time
Text
If you're new to this subject matter, let me give you a little bit of a warning, a little bit of a kind of an overview, a guide.
The, and let's just call it the, I guess the Candace Owens story or issue, just to give it a name, just like the file, we'll have this as a shortcut for our desktop file that we put all this stuff in.
The Candace Owens story.
There's about 30 subdivisions to this story.
Chapters that it's not one thing.
There's TPUSA, there's Erica, there's the accusations on her part, there's the fraud, there's the slams, there's individuals coming after her, there's the role of the media, how people are turning on each other, the disintegration of MA or whatever MAGA was.
It's a lot.
So if you think it's just one thing, oh, don't forget the Brigitte Macron issue, Macron, that's another issue too.
So there's about, like I said, there's about 27 chapters to this.
So I want to bring up one particular part of this because the more I look into this, the more fascinating it becomes.
Now, what follows, and what I'm about to discuss, is not an accusation or a verdict or a declaration of guilt.
It is a description of, I guess, the controversy as it exists now.
The allegations being discussed publicly, the documents being purportedly cited by critics and investigators and the like, and the unresolved, unanswered questions that continue to surface.
Every claim is referenced here as alleged, contested, or derived from public reporting and filings.
And that distinction matters.
Those aren't weasel words.
I'm very specific, always about what I know, what I hear, what I believe, what I suspect, what other people say.
It's a different thing because most of us, as you find out, we very rarely do the investigations ourselves.
We just hear things.
And we might like this version of the investigation because maybe perhaps somebody that we don't particularly like is skewered.
So you've got to be very, very careful of that.
All right?
Good.
Now, the current controversy that surrounds our leader, Candace Owens, did not begin as a personal feud or a cultural spat.
It began with questions about power and money and governance and transparency inside conservative organizations that present themselves as grassroots, donor-funded, Christian, morally serious, good, solid, conservative.
You got it?
You got it?
Just as an aside, if you had to infiltrate the left or the right to make money, which side would you infiltrate?
The right.
They've got the money.
And therefore, if you're going to infiltrate them, you're going to most probably have to lie.
So which one are you more likely to lie to?
The right.
And other people who are eventually or purportedly in charge of the right, they would therefore have also a greater percentage of those being misleading because they would have probably taken heed and done the same thing I just spelled out.
Does that make any sense?
You're going to see some of the best cons ever in the world of the moral, from the moral majority to fallen Christians to faith healers, you get more fraud.
Not that the subject matter is fraudulent, but the people who infiltrate it.
With the left, they're fraudulent and they know it and they'll tell you.
There's no reason for them to hide, okay?
Now, chief among these is Turning Point USA, TPUSA.
This, of course, is the Goliath, excuse me, the youth-focused political nonprofit funded by Charlie Kirk.
And don't think for a moment that people aren't fighting for that, but I've got news for you.
It's over.
Without Charlie, there's nothing there.
Erica Kirk, bless her heart, on her best day, couldn't carry his Bible.
Now, the core allegation raised by critics is that TPUSA operates less like a mission-driven nonprofit and more like a private financial organization, kind of like a syndicate,
so to speak, benefiting a small circle of insiders, benefiting a small circle, a group of insiders, through contracting agreements and consulting fees and affiliated entities and organizations.
Now, these claims, of course, are based not on leaks or anonymous tips, but on publicly available IRS Form 990 filings, corporate registrations, and payment disclosures.
Now, critics of this will argue that while none of these arrangements are necessarily illegal on their face, the pattern raises serious ethical and governance concerns.
That's what I want you to first understand.
Now, one of the most frequently cited and referenced issues involves the use of outside vendors and consulting firms allegedly owned or controlled by individuals who simultaneously hold leadership or operational roles within TPUSA or its affiliated entities.
See, the allegation is that this structure allows money donated for political advocacy to be routed back to insiders through service contracts, vending agreements, rather than paid transparently and openly as salary or performance-based compensation.
This practice, many people argue, undermines donor trust and creates conflicts of interest, even if technically permissible.
Okay?
Make sure you understand that.
Illegality is not being alleged by these folks.
It's propriety.
Does it pass the smell test?
Is this the way this Christian bulwark should be adding?
Now, several online investigators and commentators and forensic accountants and the like have pointed to millions of dollars paid over multiple years to marketing and digital strategy firms allegedly linked to senior TPUSA figures.
Now, the controversy intensified when it was reported that some of these firms had previously been banned or restricted by major social media platforms for coordinated, shall we say, inauthentic behavior, yet continued receiving payments after those bans.
Now, the allegation here is not merely reputational, but operational.
You see, why would a nonprofit committed to lawful political engagement continue contracting with entities that had drawn enforcement actions from platforms central to its mission?
Remember, you're going to do a lot of this.
Hmm.
And that's the way investigations start.
That's the way police work.
That's the way detectives work.
That's the way anything is investigated.
You hear something and you say, hmm.
And that's what we're saying.
We're saying, hmm, okay?
Do it with me.
Hmm.
See?
Now, another line of criticism focuses on fundraising operations.
Critics allege that fundraising costs at TPUSA far exceed industry norms for comparable nonprofits with unusually high percentages of revenue flowing back to fundraising vendors.
In some cases, it is alleged those vendors are alleged to be connected to individuals already receiving compensation from TPUSA.
Again, again, the allegation is not that fundraising itself is improper, but that the structure appears designed to maximize private benefit rather than mission efficiency.
That sounds good.
Now, this brings the controversy to the role of individuals tasked with financial oversight.
Critics argue that TPUSA's internal controls are weak, pointing to the absence of independent financial governance, structures of which are typical of large nonprofits.
Allegations include the lack of a truly independent audit community, or community, a committee, I should say, limited external oversight, and a heavy concentration of financial decision-making authority within a very narrow leadership circle.
Now, these claims, these allegations, these observations are amplified by TPUSA's rapid growth and increasing budget size, which reportedly exceeds tens of millions of dollars annually.
And you can always learn, use this as a rule of thumb.
Whatever they tell you officially, it's much more in reality.
Now, within this context, attention has increasingly turned to Erica Kirk.
Now, Erica Kirk.
Erica Kirk is now being looked at primarily because she was put back, not put back, but elevated, if you will, to the head of running TPUSA versus kind of secreting into the background and letting others do what they perhaps do best.
I'm not sure what that is, but I'm sure they do something best.
Now, critics, critics of all of this do not allege that she is the sole architect of any wrongdoing.
No, no, no.
Rather, they argue that her, that her, well, her proximity, her propinquity to key events and decisions and narratives in the official story raises serious questions that have not been answered and certainly not been answered clearly or consistently.
Now, trust, as you know, trust, once lost, is difficult, if impossible, to restore.
And among critics, trust in her explanations has eroded.
There are claims circulating online alleging that Erica Kirk, who became CEO of TPUSA after the assassination of her beloved husband, Charlie Kirk, at Utah Valley University on September the 10th.
How?
I don't want to say propitious, but how interesting is that?
One day before September the 11th, the day that will live in infamy for sure.
But what's interesting now is, and this is the latest as of today, she appears as these in a decade-old footage, kind of a documentary.
Her appearance linked to a documentary about electromagnetic pulse attacks and U.S. power grid vulnerabilities.
She was like, what, 27 years old at the time?
And there are viral posts all over X asserting that she was briefing, in essence, professionals or speaking of matters on national security threats.
But these claims originated from a variety of accounts, and they always say unverified.
These are unverified accounts.
Well, what does that mean?
What do you mean the accounts are unverified?
Is that Erica or not?
Yeah, it seems to be.
Well, what difference does it make?
Again, being careful, if that means I'm in the I'm telling you what's going on today as we speak.
And many people suggest that these, either these accounts or these pieces have not been documented with no confirmation, of course, that the footage represents an official role with the Central Intelligence Agency or that it depicts anything beyond a filmed presentation or promotional segment, leaving, one would say, the allegations unresolved and the context of the video unclear.
Now, okay.
How many times have you, when you were 27 years old, worked as kind of like a Devana White, the spokesperson, for an industrial piece on EMP attacks from various countries with CIA heads, ex-heads, and operatives as a part of that?
Isn't that interesting?
Now, what does that mean?
Doesn't mean anything.
But once you're in the system, like anything else, when you're in a radio, let's just say you're starting a radio and you work at one station.
Pretty soon you run into somebody from another station.
And within five years, you basically know all the players because you're in that system.
When you find yourself in the position of working with intelligence fronts and the like, it allows you entree to similar intel groups because as you know, many of them work together.
You know how Five Eyes works and all of that.
I don't want to get too much into the woods or the weeds, but isn't this interesting?
This Erica's got such a fascinating background.
And there are people who are suggesting that she was not clear about whether she had other boyfriends or not.
Look, I'm not critical.
But all I know is this.
And forgive me for saying this.
And I so apologize if anybody takes offense at this.
But she has come across as so shady and so, in some cases, fake.
And people are saying it, and you know they're saying it.
And those who were her strictest defenders are having a harder time basically keeping up that suggestion.
Now, one of the specific allegations surrounding Erica Kirk involves, I guess you'd call them, inconsistencies in public narratives about her role and her background.
Critics, notice why I say critics, critics point to, again, these appearances in defense and national security themed briefings and presentations and media productions that were, again, that were later described in conflicting ways.
At times, at times, these appearances were framed as observational or documentary.
And at other times, they were portrayed as participatory or advisory.
And the allegation and allegations are not that such participation is improper, but that shifting descriptions suggest narrative management, storyline control, versus transparency.
Isn't that interesting?
They never tell you this.
I don't want to say the truth, but they don't tell you that, yeah, I did it.
It was a gig.
It paid me whatever.
I don't know.
Yeah, that's James Woolsey.
He was head of the CIA.
Yeah, I know.
I'm talking about EMP.
What do I know?
I was 27 years old.
What the hell do I know?
About Carrington class disruptions.
I just say it makes you say, hmm.
Now, another concern raised by critics is selective disclosure.
You see, information about certain activities reportedly surfaced only after being discovered by third parties, rather than disclosed proactively.
Many people, critics, argue that this pattern feeds suspicion and invites a lot of speculation, especially when paired and associated with aggressive efforts to shut down discussion rather than clarify facts.
You see, in public controversies, as you know, silence or deflection or distraction often speaks louder than denial.
Look what's happening right now in Minnesota.
Look what people are saying about that in terms of what's certainly true and tragic and what's being done to deflect, to redirect and to confuse and distract.
Now, back to Erica, the trust issue deepened when critics connected these kind of like these story questions, these fact questions, to,
I guess, broader concerns about institutional credibility in conservative spaces, you know, that prize and that pay great attention to authenticity and skepticism of elite power.
You know, even the perception of insider protection can be damaging.
Then there are the allegations that Erica Kirk benefits from a kind of a protective media or some kind of an organizational buffer.
While critics of hers, like Candace, face reputational attacks, platform pressure, and they've intensified resentment.
Erica gets a pass.
Don't talk about her.
She's a widow.
Don't mention that.
She's got kids.
How dare you?
Now, Candace, that's a different story.
Let her rip.
And remember, the first time they tell you, stop talking about that, there's something there.
It's that simple.
And it gets deeper and deeper.
And this is where, right now, this is where Candace Owen enters a controversy per usual in a substantive way.
Candace Owens didn't frame her commentary as a personal attack.
No.
She framed it as a demand for consistency, transparency, truth.
If conservative organizations claim to stand against corruption and opacity, as we say, and the self-dealing among the elites, well, then those standards must apply internally, don't you think?
And her argument is that the movement cannot credibly criticize establishment abuse while ignoring alleged misconduct among its own leadership.
It's the hypocrisy thing.
What's good for the goose?
Candace Owens has repeatedly, repeatedly emphasized that asking questions is not an act of hostility.
In her view, it is an act of loyalty to principle.
She's also argued that attempts to silence her, to shut her up, to punish inquiry, to do such, only validate concerns.
In fact, this stance has put her at odds with very powerful figures who prefer to contain and control the controversy rather than engage it.
And you've read the online comments.
I mean, it's incredible.
She's crazy.
She's a nut.
She's not crazy.
Critics of Candace Owens often accuse her of fueling conspiracy theories.
Candace Owens counters that by saying that conspiracies thrive in essence, or conspiracy theories or suggestion allegations survive precisely when transparency is absent.
She points out that many of the facts under discussion come from primary documents that were filed with government agencies, not some kind of speculative rumor.
In fact, the question she argues is not whether donors should panic, but whether leadership, whether leadership should just explain, just come clean.
That's all she's asking.
And what's more, the allegation of fraud is the most serious and also the most carefully framed.
There are very few critics who assert outright criminal fraud.
I'm not doing that.
I don't think anybody else is.
Instead, they allege a pattern of financial misrepresentation, of vagueness, kind of a choreographed obscurity or opacity.
Again, I love that word.
But they also allege donor misdirection, self-enrichment, all of that could meet civil fraud standards, if proved, depending upon the intent and disclosure.
Now, whether such claims would succeed legally, anybody's guess.
But the ethical implications, the ethical implications alone are significant.
Now, another recurring, this is another one too, another allegation, which you should know about, involves governance culture, for lack of a better word.
Those people who are critical describe an environment in which loyalty is rewarded and dissent is punished.
Sounds almost like the old Soviet regimes.
They allege that internal critics are marginalized and contracts are awarded based on relationships rather than performance.
And I guess also depending upon messaging discipline.
And it's enforced aggressively.
If you want to be a part of us, you better.
You hear this a lot of times, sometimes maybe, but allegedly in Scientology and others, you hear this absolute, almost this fervent, perfervid focus on maintaining loyalty and punishing those who deviate from that.
And by the way, these claims, in essence, echo allegations seen in many large political organizations across the spectrum.
But see, but that doesn't make them less concerning.
Now, here's the thing.
The controversy that we're talking about right now, and by the way, they're doing everything in their power to get away from this.
The controversy has also been shaped by the reaction to it.
Again, I'm telling you, rather than addressing allegations point by point, organizational defenders will shift focus to the motives, the tone of the critics, the sanity, what they've said elsewhere.
Candace Owens has argued that this tactic avoids substance.
Of course it does.
And her telling, no amount of personal discrediting and blasphemy and defamation changes the context of a tax filing.
That's black and white.
What makes this moment, what makes this issue so volatile is that it intersects with broader debates, broader questions about free speech and enforcement.
Those who are watching this note that while conservative organizations rightly condemn censorship by governments and platforms, they sometimes replicate similar suppression internally.
Isn't that interesting?
Now, allegations and suggestions that critics are threatened with lawsuits or deplatforming or reputational harm, all of this mirrors tactics that conservatives often opposed when used by the left.
Now, Candace Owens has tied this pattern to a larger warning.
Movements, organizations, whatever this movement is, fall not when attacked from outside, but when they lose the ability to police themselves honestly.
It's almost like they go in and they gut it.
And then when there's nothing left, it's like good fellas.
All right, it's like, F you, pay me.
Candace argues that refusing to confront this kind of alleged misconduct invites greater scandal later.
And it further erodes the moral authority that is necessary for political success.
Remember, this is Charlie's legacy.
And the situation, by the way, remains unresolved.
No court has adjudicated these claims.
No regulator has issued findings.
What exists in a growing population of documentation is this paper chase, a widening circle of skepticism and distrust.
And there's a deepening divide over how much scrutiny is acceptable.
In that vacuum, so to speak, in the vacuum, trust becomes the central currency.
And by the way, it's not trust, it's keeping your mouth shut.
And trust apparently is in short supply.
Candace Owens, my friend, has chosen to stand with those individuals, I think, obviously, demanding answers.
Demanding answers rather than those insisting on silence.
Who calls for silence?
And by the way, that choice, she knows, carries risk, but it also clarifies stakes.
This controversy is not merely about personalities.
It's about whether movements, whether organizational structures that claim to oppose corruption, are willing to examine themselves with the same kind of excitement and vim and vigor and attention that they apply to their enemies.
And my friend, the unanswered questions persist.
Why were certain financial arrangements structured as they were regarding the use of vendors?
Why were disclosures incomplete or delayed?
Why do the narratives in the storyline shift depending upon the audience?
Why is inquiry met with escalation rather than, I guess, explanation?
Why?
These are not fringe concerns.
These are foundational to credibility.
And by the way, until they are addressed plainly and answered, the controversy is going to blow up.
And they don't, they're not smart enough, I don't think, to see what's coming.
You think they would be immediately meeting to say, what do we have to do?
Let's start letting things, let's start letting people know.
See, they want demand of the Epstein files.
You got to hit the Epstein files.
Granted, it's a completely different thing.
But when it comes to demanding release of the structure of TPUSA, nah, it's different.
Remember something.
Attempts to suppress all this will only amplify it.
And those who, like Candace Owens, insist on transparency and truth and openness will continue to attract support from people who believe that truth and not unity at any cost, but that truth is the only durable and functioning foundation.
You see, people know this scam.
It's such a great, hey, you've got a thing called, I got TPUSA.
Oh, that's great.
Listen, we have vendors that work with us.
I'm going to write a contract for you.
You're going to be in charge of, let's say, sanitary sanitation or cleaning or whatever it is.
Even though you have an organization, we're going to write you a check to what's the name of your cleaning services.
We're going to send you a check.
Because after all, it makes sense that we have money to pay for certain things and services for lawyers and assistants and employees.
The potential for fraud is incredible.
So while a lot of people are saying the reason, the reason why Charlie was axed was because of Israel.
You're hearing this.
Other people say the reason it was because he was getting too close to the truth or other political rivalries.
One could also say that it was because he was getting too close.
They were talking about Doge type of audits and the like, that he was getting too close to the truth.
And that if he's out of the way, first, stupidly, they thought if we put Erica out there, people will stop asking questions.
No, because nobody knew how terrible she would be.
But with Charlie gone, maybe the interest wanes and it's all over.
I don't know.
We will see.
But just understand this.
Erica Kirk doing documentaries, presentations for what looks like a CIA operation, a video operation.
Wow.
With ex-CIA heads?
Wow.
See how this works?
See how this works?
Did you ever think it would get to this point?
No.
No.
Did Charlie know all this?
You think maybe Charlie was getting close to this?
Listen, we're going to talk more about this.
But first, let me say thank you.
Thank you for everything you have done.
Thank you for being so much a part of this, for being so great when it comes to our organization.
Thank you.
Thank you for your kindness and your incredible, just your focus, your kind, kind words, and your great questions.
The comments are incredible.
So my dear friends, I say to you, thank you.
Please like this video.
Hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
And also I ask you, very importantly, to subscribe.
All of these factors, the liking, the subscriptions, help us with our metrics.
It puts us on the HOV lane and allows other people to be drawn in for this incredibly brilliant and sensible approach to a seemingly labyrinthine issue.
So subscribe and like this.
Thank you for your kind notes.
And as I say all the time, thank you so much for how kind you are to my wife.
And in your following her on YouTube at Lynn's Warriors in the fight to stop predation and just the absolute abuse of our children.
It's unbelievable.
In any event, my friends, thank you.
Thank you.
And thank you, Candace, so much for giving us so much to discuss and for your indefatigable efforts to get to the bottom of this.
In Charlie's name.
All right, dear friends, have a great and a glorious day.
Like I say, I've got some questions for you to ask.