CANDACE OWENS Rips Erika Kirk, TPUSA and Jealous Wannabes
Candace Owens defies critics like Erika Kirk and TPUSA by tackling controversial claims—such as Charlie Kirk’s alleged "controlled hit" assassination—only when evidence emerges, unlike others who recycle Epstein, "PizzaGate," or JFK conspiracy theories for social validation. Meticulous in research, she invites direct scrutiny, framing attacks as proof of her relevance rather than conceding to performative victimhood. While TPUSA reduces serious topics like online safety to mock crime scene selfies, Owens persists with rigorous arguments, forcing even detractors to engage, exposing a media landscape where boldness often clashes with superficial delegitimization. [Automatically generated summary]
I mean, I think you have drawn out every single voice, every paid contributor, every hack, everybody from the deep state, the shadow government, every hater, everybody who's jealous, confused, or just loves a good fight.
You have drawn them out.
You have officially done it.
And I can't thank you enough.
Because what you do is what nobody else does.
You go right out to the middle of the fight and you say, come on, here's what I'm saying.
There are great people.
God bless them.
God bless them.
Who all of a sudden fancy themselves, now that it's all cool, now that it's all safe with Epstein and Pizza Talk, can I talk now?
And oh, they're brave now.
Rehashing, recycling, reiterating, and repeating what many of us have been saying since they were in middle school or high school.
Not to belittle them, but too little, too late.
There's a lot of folks out there really strong.
Oh, they've just discovered Luciferian connections or they've just discovered pizza, whatever.
God bless them.
Understand something.
What you're doing, which is great, is repeating something which has already been established years ago.
That's all.
You're an oldies band and you don't realize it.
You're a tribute band and you don't realize it.
But that doesn't destroy the efficacy or the worth of the message.
What Candace is doing is unique.
Nobody's doing this.
Nobody seems to be talking about Charlie, about this phony baloney case, this ridiculous Tyler Robinson story, this fantasy.
You would think that all of these, especially the big mouths, especially the ones who all of a sudden, hey, did you know that when they shot, they killed the 35th president of the United States, that there was a conspiracy.
So many people just figured out JFK.
Now they're coming out.
Now it's safe.
But what she's doing is she's up front now.
And nobody wants to hear it because it's new.
Too soon, Mrs. Lincoln.
This is what separates her from everybody else.
She's not like a lot of these, all of a sudden, these conspiracy theorists who now all of a sudden, hey, I like this.
You know, I put up this piece about such and such, about cannibalism or vampirism or exsanguination ceremonies, and I got a hit.
Hey, guess what?
I'm now into Satanism or I'm now into evil or whatever.
And I know, you know who I'm talking about.
Listen, God bless you.
Doesn't make the claim any doesn't make the claim not valid.
If you want to talk about communism, that's been around for a long time too.
But what I'm trying to tell you is that she's the real deal.
She's doing what nobody's doing.
Nobody.
This is brand new stuff.
And what drives this sustained fixation on Candace Owens isn't simply, well, disagreement.
You know, disagreement is ordinary.
Disagreement is good.
You know, it's the currency of public life.
What surrounds her instead is something more organized and more emotional.
It's a reaction to consistency and to a rare kind of media gravity that many critics in particular cannot replicate and therefore try to neutralize, especially from a bunch of hacks who have been around, who I'm serious.
Listen, they're paid off.
You know how it is.
People are paid off in different ways.
And it's obvious.
You're the naysayers.
You're the professional, you know, the agent provocateur.
You're like a false flag.
We know it.
We get it.
How can anybody question anybody who's questioning this stupid narrative regarding Charlie Kirk when everybody loves him so much?
The other day when Candace was talking about perhaps being betrayed by Charlie, people came out of the woodwork and said, how dare you talk about him?
That's the great Charlie Church.
Well, god damn it, if that's what you think, then what about the fact that he was assassinated in a controlled hit?
Oh, I don't care about that.
I just care about somebody sullying the image of Charlie if that person is Candace.
I don't care who assassinates him.
That's my concern.
This is how phony these people are.
They love trolling.
They're like mean girls.
They're kids on a playground.
They want to mock and ridicule.
They don't want to get their hands dirty with the facts of the case.
Now, the central claim her supporters make is straightforward.
Candace isn't careless.
You may reject her conclusions.
That's fine.
You may argue with her framing.
Okay, no problem.
I'd like to hear that.
That I can respect.
But the repeated charge rather is that she's habitually wrong or reckless or crazy.
And that doesn't survive close inspection.
It's the old, she's crazy.
It's the Soviet trick.
That's all they've got.
Remote viewing.
You want to talk to the CIA about that?
Look, I don't want to go through this.
But is that the best you have?
Is that the best you have?
What do you do?
You look around and you call each other in the morning like a conference call.
Like, what do we say today?
Well, we got to attack her.
What do we say?
What did she say?
She's the only one even who gives a damn about Charlie.
We're doing nothing.
We're sitting on a fan ass doing nothing.
She's doing it.
And what frustrates her critics, I guess, you might want to say, is that she tends to arrive prepared.
She studies timelines meticulously.
She's got names and dates and you said this on this date and you said you were married here, but we were this in Mar-a-Lago and it was at the Trump Tower's in Washington.
There wasn't Tuesday.
It was a Wednesday because of it.
And the other people go, oh, yeah, well, you're too good.
That's all they've got.
That's all they've got.
She cross-references sources.
She constructs narratives that are internally coherent and consistent and has people on as her guest to verify this.
Not second and third hand.
Not like a lot of people who basically take her show.
You know how much content she provides for people?
Every single day, she puts out more content.
She does.
She should get a piece of their action.
How many people take her pieces and say, wow, and they react.
Wow.
Did you see that?
How am I doing?
I got five minutes in you.
Well, let's see what else Candace said.
Wow.
It's like police arrest videos.
They do all the work and you say, did you see that?
How about that?
Brilliant commentary.
Brilliant commentary.
My friends, in a media environment that, for the most time, I think too often rewards speed over rigor.
That alone sets her apart.
From that difference flows the hostility.
You know, much of the opposition isn't about a single argument or an episode.
It's about a presence.
It's like, damn it, you're still here.
Candace Owens occupies a space in the cultural, I don't know, word, ecosystem, conversational platform, whatever, that many others covet.
They would want this more than anything else.
She commands attention without asking permission.
Let me tell you something.
There may be other shows who get more viewers, but in terms of the person who you run when there's a new show, a new drop, oh dear God.
And she never loses her mind.
She never gets upset.
She laughs, and that drives them nuts.
She mocks her opponents.
She speaks with the confidence of somebody who expects to be challenged and welcomes it and loves it.
They can't ignore her.
If they ignored her, that would drive her crazy.
But they can't.
And she knows it.
So that's not going to happen.
For rivals, you know, her adversaries trying to establish their own footing, you know, in this world, her prominence, her immane prominence, is an obstacle.
And the easiest way to compete is not to, you know, out-argue her, but to delegitimize her.
See, this is where the metaphor of the hounds becomes useful.
You know, once a public figure is marked as a target, a predictable pattern emerges, a constant stream of criticism.
You see it all the time.
And some of it thoughtful.
They did it to Alex.
Anybody who's big.
Remember, if you don't get a stream of dissonance and argument and disagreement, you're not hitting home.
You're not hitting home.
Much of it, of course, is repetitive.
The same accusations, you know, circulate with minor variations.
Over time, though, the volume itself becomes the message.
It's the volume and the frequency.
It's not the substance.
But hey, look at this again.
And the trends.
People are coming on and, oh, she's crazy.
Crazy?
Crazy.
Crazy.
She has more sense in the lack of hair or a toenail than these people have in their entire essence.
And by the way, you know, the goal isn't persuasion.
It's exhaustion.
You see, if a voice can be surrounded by enough noise, just like to drown you out, then the assumption is that the audiences will confuse controversy with discredit.
No hope that if we yell at her long enough, well, people think maybe there's something in what we're saying, but there isn't.
Yet Owens has shown a particular resilience to this tactic.
Her audience, her audience doesn't interpret sustained criticism as proof of guilt.
It doesn't mean anything.
It's the opposite.
You only take flack when you're over the target.
It's to me her validation, her authentication.
Often, you know, they read this as some kind of confirmation of relevance, but in a fragmented media landscape, this schizoid, detached world that we live in, survival depends on the ability to hold attention.
Baby, does she hold attention?
Candace Owen does more than hold it.
She converts it into loyalty.
Followers, followers of her feel that they're watching someone who is willing to say what others hesitate to say.
Or, in her case, what no one else says.
Who's advocating all these big mouths that supposedly love Charlie and love it?
What are they saying?
Don't touch.
Be nice to Erica.
That's it.
That's it.
Be nice.
Can you imagine if during any kind of JFK assassination debate, be nice to Marina Oswald?
What?
Be nice.
That's all you've got.
And this weird perception creates a bond that is difficult to break, you know, through external pressure alone.
See, jealousy, oh, God.
Oh, my God.
Jealousy plays a role that what we got to talk about.
And the best part of one in particular blames her for being jealous.
See, that's important.
Jealousy plays a role that few participants will openly acknowledge.
See, media, as you know, is a competitive arena, disguised as a collaborative one.
My friends, I've been around this for a long time.
And I've been in newsrooms and radio stations, and I'm telling you, oh my God, these people hate each other with such a, oh.
And the more you're successful, the more you're hated.
Because maybe it's the fact that insecure people were drawn to this in the first place who need self-validation.
I don't know.
But every commentator is, in some sense, competing for the same finite resource, which is public attention, but in her case, respect.
And they ain't going to get that.
And when one figure consistently captures that resource, others feel the scarcity and the impossibility of attaining such even more, more sharply.
And criticism then becomes a way to redistribute status.
You see, by diminishing a rival, Candace, see?
A critic, somebody who hates her, hopes to elevate themselves.
See, there's also a sociological element here.
And you got to think about this.
It's like the scrum, so to speak.
Human beings are drawn to bandwagons.
Social media accelerates this instinct.
When a dominant narrative forms around a figure, many people participate, not out of a deep conviction, but out of momentum.
It's what a fad is.
It's how overnight everybody went from a little tattoo to covering your body in these idiots because they want to be a part of the group, the bandwagon, the scrum, the movement, the murmuration, the crowd.
They want to be a part of the crowd.
It doesn't matter.
We will say whatever phrase you say.
Everybody wants to unpack.
Notice everybody wants to unpack.
Everybody's saying literally.
Everything is literally.
I literally, my eyes bugged out of my head.
Literally.
No, they didn't.
Literally, awesome.
Whatever the word is, whatever the phrase is, whatever the clothing, people all of a sudden walking around with slippers and slides and pajamas.
You could cut off fingers like some kind of a Japanese mob cult.
And if that becomes cool, people will suffer knuckles because people are mindless.
They have no souls.
They have no sense of being.
They want to be part of it.
And it's easier to echo some prevailing sentiment than to interrogate it.
And for the new brand of emerging influencers, aligning with the popular critique, they figure offers instant visibility.
Attacking a high-profile target is a shortcut to relevance.
And the new one is those who take Candace's work and then says, hey, folks, hey, guys, hey, guys.
Here's a bombshell for you.
Dan Rather's Press Conferences Revisited00:10:24
Yeah, it's what Candace said.
No, no, no, it's my bombshell.
No, you're rehashing and repackaging.
Yeah, well, whatever.
But it's a bombshell.
You're not going to believe this.
Well, why don't I just go watch Candace?
No, listen to me tell you what she said.
It's like in the old days when Dan Rather, after Nixon would have these press conferences, Dan Rather would tell you what Nixon just said.
It's like, I was here.
Now, what also makes Candace Owens a particularly potent focal point in this is her apparent immunity to, let's call it reputational erosion.
Scandals that might derail other careers tend to wash over her without any damage.
Part of this is strategic.
Part of this is she's Teflon, but she also addresses controversies directly rather than allowing them to metastasize in silence.
See, part of it's structural.
Her platform is not dependent on a single gatekeeper.
She operates across channels, which diffuses risk and concentrates, dare I say, autonomy.
And the charges that she can't do anything wrong is, of course, hyperbolic.
No public figure is infallible.
But the persistence of her success, that's the thing.
That suggests that her error rate, at least in the eyes of her audience, is lower than detractors predict.
And more important, more important, she has cultivated an image or an intellectual self-possession that's second to none.
When she revises a position, for example, clarifies a statement, she frames it as part of an ongoing inquiry rather than a capitulation.
Remember what John Maynard Kane said.
When the facts change, it changed my mind.
You only, I didn't walk away from the Democrats, Democrats left me, that sort of thing.
You have to remain protein and malleable, and you have to be able to change your opinion based upon what's going on.
The same thing with finding.
There was a time in medicine when bloodletting and leeches went the way of antibiotics and surgery.
Not that people changed their mind, but the data changed.
The information changed.
You've got to know what's right and what's wrong.
If there's a position that is wrong, get rid of it.
But if there's something that she's traditionally involved in, and that if it holds court, it holds forth today, stick to it.
By the way, that posture preserves credibility.
See, her critics often mistake her confidence for arrogance.
Oh, no, no.
The people who love her interpret it as clarity, as dignity, dignity of truth.
And the distinction matters.
We live in an era right now where we're saturated with hedged kind of caution language and institutional caution.
A voice that sounds certain, you know, sounds certain because it cuts through the BS and the fog.
And when it comes to cutting through a poster, she's next to none.
You know, Candace, it's true, understands that the theatrical dimension of media is true.
She knows that delivery shapes.
She's got a great delivery.
Well-constructed argument.
Well, everything, everything.
The attitude, not ennui, but the insouciance, the, this is so great, laughs at people.
Can you believe that?
She was laughing at somebody with it.
It was the most derisive, the most vicious.
She's just laughing.
Said it all.
Didn't get upset.
Didn't get upset.
And she doesn't call people crazy.
She calls them wrong.
She calls them wrong incorrectly.
She tells you why.
We know, people know, a well-constructed argument presented timidly, people know, will lose to a weaker argument delivered with conviction.
That's sad but true.
She does both of them.
She's true and she's powerful.
She refuses timidity, timorousness, tremulousness, you name it.
There's also a deeper discomfort at work here.
Candace challenges not only specific claims and allegations, but the authority, the authority of those who traditionally arbitrate public discourse in Latin, in an extraordinary writ, quo warranto in law.
By what authority?
Basically, who the are you?
How do you know what you know?
It's an epistemological question as well.
Who are you?
What do you know, and how do you know that?
She questions narratives that many consider unsettled, settled rather, and for audiences invested in those narratives, her presence feels maybe destabilizing.
See, the reaction is not merely intellectual.
It's protective.
See, attacking the messenger becomes a way to defend the message, oddly enough.
And the martyr complex, oh my God.
She warns against it, and it's relevant here.
You know, some influencers, I love that word.
They should be called alleged or putative or hopeful influencers.
But some of the influencers centered their identity on persecution.
They narrate their careers as a sequence of injuries inflicted by hostile forces.
Look at Erica.
All she talks about is, and I have to believe that they will not stop me.
Who wants to stop you?
Did Billy Graham ever say that?
When he spoke, there is nobody who could top Billy Graham.
He went around the world.
He talked to billions of people.
He didn't go up there and say, I will suffer the slings and arrows.
I mean, no.
Candace, by contrast, tends to frame opposition as evidence of engagement and her correctness rather than victimhood.
She doesn't play that criticism bit.
I mean, look, she acknowledges.
She says it.
She doesn't deny that there are critics out there.
She absorbs it and continues.
It's like no big deal.
And she says it, by the way, the reason why they're criticizing me is because they're wrong.
And that refusal to perform, you know, suffering business denies them, denies the enemy a familiar script.
See, success.
Oh, success is the best revenge, as my wife says.
Success compounds the irritation.
And Candace is not only visible, she's effective.
And she attracts and retains followers at a rate that people would kill for.
Her ability to convert what amounts to attention into durable influence and loyalty marks her as a force rather than a fad.
She's not going away.
And people who have invested years in building their own platforms see in her trajectory a mirror of their ambitions.
And sometimes, interestingly enough, their frustrations.
And to call her a force to be reckoned with is not to canonize her, it's to acknowledge her impact.
She shapes conversations.
She reframes debates.
She forces responses.
And God damn it, even those who hate her and oppose her must account for her.
And that is a measure of power in the modern media that nobody can put a price on.
The collective scrum, the murmurations that form around such a figure as Candace is as much about human psychology as it is about ideology.
People cluster around conflict.
They seek belonging in shared reactions.
Supporting or opposing Owens becomes a badge of identity.
Think about that one.
The individual arguments risk being overshadowed by the tribal energy that surrounds them.
And what remains constant throughout all of this is her presence at the center of the storm.
It's all about her.
And she navigates this beautifully.
And she loves to negotiate the criticism without retreating into self-pity.
Oh, I go, oh, I'm going to be here every day.
And I'm going to be here because, damn it, I know I'm right.
I'm right.
I'm right.
Imagine her doing that.
She says, it's got that.
She treats controversy as terrain to be crossed rather than a wound to be displayed.
It's their stigmata.
That stance, that position resonates, or as George Bush would say, resonates with audiences disgusted, tired of this theatrical grievance.
You know what I'm talking about.
They see in her a model of engagement that prioritizes argument over anguish.
And in the end, the debate over Candace Owens is less about any single statement she makes than about the kind of voice she represents in total.
How many people can you say embody a style of commentary that's assertive, prepared, and unapologetic?
For admirers, that's refreshing.
And for detractors, it's infuriating.
The intensity of the reaction on both sides testifies to this significance.
And public life has always been produced or producing by the figures who attract disproportionate attention and emotion.
That's fine.
Candace is one of them.
She operates in a space where ideas and thoughts and personality and performance all kind of intersect.
And her critics, by the way, will continue to circle and she wouldn't have it any other way.
Her supporters will always defend her.
And she will likely continue doing what she's been doing from the beginning, which is to speak with the expectation and the knowledge that she will be heard and contested in equal measure and she wouldn't have it any other way.
There is no one like her.
She is a badass.
So here's what you do.
Whenever someone detracts her or detracts from her or tries to attack her, I should say, go online and say, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But why?
What's your beef?
Give me facts.
What is she saying that's wrong?
What is she?
What is your beef?
What is it that you find the problem?
Support Her Work00:05:05
Tell me.
They can't do it.
Because the people, as you know, not only do people take her work and repeat it as their own, but what they'll do is they'll just take, they'll be a part of the scrub.
You know what a murmuration is?
Those are the starlings that fly, these birds that fly.
If you ask each one, where are you going?
Each one was it, beats the hell out of me.
I'm just following this guy.
And I'm part of the movement.
I'm part of the school, part of the wave.
That's what they are.
I'm going to say this one more time.
Can you think of anybody who's trying to vindicate, trying to find justice for the loss of Charlie?
Can you?
Can you?
Well, can you?
I know.
I don't know anybody.
I don't know anybody.
Including Erica.
She wants to speed the trial up to get it done with.
Move along.
I got money to make.
I got friends.
Oh, Charlie.
Whatever, whatever.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Weird.
My friends, I thank you.
I thank you.
Join me.
Join me.
Standing behind her.
Take people on.
Do it.
And it's very simple.
Why do you say that?
Why do you say that?
See, there's a lot of people, a lot of people who don't get their hands dirty.
There's a lot of people who don't get their hands dirty.
They talk a good game, but they're not really in the battle.
They just sort of, and I've seen this, like I said, for a long time, okay?
A long time.
A long time.
I've been doing this for like, what, 38 years?
Been around before Rush and all that.
So I've seen this.
And with experience comes, oh, I've seen this before.
A little judgment, not wisdom, just experience.
And it's the same thing.
They rise to the top and they go away.
And the people who are the ones who did well, whether it's Rush Limbaugh to Art Bell to Alex Jones, they forged forward and they didn't care what anybody said.
In fact, it was a negativity that was a validation.
By the way, thank you for your kind words.
Thank you for following my wife at Lynn's Warriors.
You should see what she's going on now.
talk about this, this is, you want to talk about somebody doing God's work?
She's interviewing a woman at Lynn's Warriors.
See her latest interview.
In what she's dealing with, child marriage.
Forced, arranged child marriage.
Not in some foreign country.
Here.
What's going on here is incredible.
You should see the online safety measures that Congress is doing nothing about.
You talk about a fight?
You can't believe it to protect kids.
So if you want to join that fight, I appreciate it.
She appreciates it.
Follow her online at Lynn's Warriors.
Watch and join this.
Be a warrior too, which is what I'd like to think I was.
And I want to thank you for your comments.
You've been very, very kind.
Now, we might disagree sometime from time to time.
Let me know.
It's okay.
It's okay.
But here's the thing.
Most of us have gotten to a point in our life where we realize who are the good ones and who are the bad ones.
And Candace Owens is a good one.
And you would think that, by the way, does Charlie Kirk do it?
Does he have any parents?
Did he spawn?
Was he dropped?
Does he have anybody in his family?
Did he ever speak?
Anybody?
Did anybody ever say anything?
They should be thanking, thanking to keep his Charlie's message alive.
This TPUSA, remember that weird, remember the mock tent?
Or that take a picture next to Charlie here, taking selfies, where Charlie was gunned down.
Oh my God.
They can't.
I can't tell if they're giddy.
I'd hate to think so.
I don't know anymore.
But the only one talking about it is Candace.
And when Charlie let her down, she'll tell you.
This is not an apotheosis.
This is not a hagiography.
This is not some story about a saint.
This is not this elevation and canonization.
It's looking at a person for what he did and as a human being.
Because in her world as a staunch Catholic, there are the only hagiographies and the only references to saints are the true saints and the church itself.
So thank you.
Like this video.
Hit the little button so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
Subscribe as well.
80% of the people who watch don't even subscribe.
And support Candace Owens.
Support her.
Support anybody who's got the cojones like she does to come out there and fight for fight for truth.