Candace - please don't become Beyonce!
Posted on 02/24/2026 6:15:01 AM PST by Miami Rebel
Candace Owens announced on Monday that her show would be back on the air beginning Wednesday with a new “investigative series” targeting Erika Kirk, the widow of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, eliciting an abundance of horrified reactions.
The teaser trailer for the series shared by Owens on X begins with news coverage about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, but quickly transitions to clips of its subject, as well as critical commentary about her, “Zionists,” and Israel. There’s even a implication that the Turning Point USA CEO is implicated in a Romanian human trafficking scandal.
The series is titled “Bride of Charlie,” and its promotional banner depicts Erika wearing a crown.
Owens, who has promoted a wide variety of conspiracy theories about her former colleague’s death, had initially said she would stop if Erika asked her to. Over time, however, Owens began to subtly, and then outright suggest that the widow might have been involved in a conspiracy to betray her husband.
In the hours since Owens began to publicize her new project, much of the internet has united in disgust at her and those who have run cover for her.
“Everyday, there’s some new line being crossed by this lunatic that makes me wonder whether certain people will finally speak up,” mused RedState’s Bonchie. “They won’t, though. Not even this will be enough, and it’s probably time to start asking why they are so invested in Owens.”
“What would Charlie have to say about this? And what would he think of his so-called friends who can’t summon the courage to say it for him?” wondered The Babylon Bee’s Seth Dillon.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
“Rohling’s book is recognized as a notorious anti‑Jewish polemic, built on medieval libels and out‑of‑context quotes.[adl]”
I have not read Rohlings book—but I will say that every time I dig deeply into ADL claims I find them to be full of holes and useless propaganda.
If AI uses them as a source it is a classic case of AI hallucinations.
A further thought—what AI should do is not blindly quote the ADL.
AI should go to the original text, research the footnotes and make an independent evaluation to determine if AI concludes the quotes are “out of context”—with a detailed explanation of how it came to its conclusions.
Otherwise it is just pushing ADL propaganda—a high school sophomore could do that.
Candace - please don't become Beyonce!
You have done a very bad job refuting her arguments.
1.) Offers no actual counter argument other than that they are suing her. That isn’t an argument.
2.) Appeal to authority - “no official sources have confirmed it”
3.) a.) Again appeal to authority. “no credible investigation has linked...” Then it refers to a Freeper making ad hominem attacks “delusional”, “absurd”, etc...
b.) I agree this sounds absurd but this didn’t really state her claim accurately and offer any evidence as a refutation.
c.) Again...Suing someone doesn’t prove who is right. Have either party won damages? If so, that would be an actual point. What you chose to post, is not.
4.) Appeal to authority
5.) VERY BAD response. It is saying that the 79% figure isn’t wrong, only the REASON that it is 79% is wrong. This alone makes you look very bad.
6.) Again, it just keeps getting worse. It isn’t even giving any evidence or argument. It just says, “That’s not right.”
7.)Appeal to authority “Political historians widely agree...”
8.) Ad hominem - “People have said negative things about the book. That makes it wrong.”
9.) I don’t even understand what is written here enough to comment on it.
10.) Again, the text doesn’t make sense. Is it saying that since other countries besides Israel get attacked, that means the jihadists aren’t motivated Israel?
11.)Appeal to authority - “Fact checkers rejected the claim...”
Some of these things that she says I don’t agree with, have never heard before, etc....Some I agree with her 100%. Regardless, if you think what you just posted in any way refuted her claims, you lack any critical thinking skills at all.
You should be embarrassed of what you just posted.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/
My opinions on Owens line up closely with your opinions of her.
“You have to wonder if she is jealous of Erika Kirk.”
I’ve been saying for months that the Green-eyed Monster is fueling CO’s insanity. I’ll repeat:
She’ll recover once she resigns herself to the fact that (1) Charlie didn’t pick her to be Mrs. Charlie Kirk; he picked Erika. (2) She’ll never be white ... like Erika.
Do your own research genius. If you can’t realize that Candace is a vile person on your own, then there is nothing we can do to help you.
Sorry for not seeing your post until later on, being out shoveling snow), but I think Owens is what is embarrassing. And my quick copy and paste was I did not think the credibility of Owens needed more than that in the light of her claims (like, Brigitte Macron is not a woman; she was born male and “transitioned,” she and Emmanuel Macron are blood relatives, and he is using a stolen identity; this is the “biggest political scandal in history; alleges French President Emmanuel Macron ordered an assassination plot against her, with Israeli‑operative involvement; “TPUSA / Israel plotted Charlie Kirk’s death”via Israeli‑linked actors, and “zionist‑military” forces ; Jack Hibbs and Calvary Chapels are linked to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Calvary Chapels are an invention of the military, a psych‑op to manipulate Christians into supporting Israel; “Charlie Kirk was a time‑traveler controlled by agents”; etc. is to be pitied.
Meanwhile your main premise is that appeal to authority is a invalid argument, when in this context it is not, while arguing that any evidence is needed as a refutation to the claim that Charlie Kirk was a time‑traveler (that Charlie Kirk repeatedly told her he was a time traveler, and “the agents that surrounded him throughout his entire life” and sent Kirk to an “X-Men school” because his mother wouldn't allow them to drug him.
Since as attributed at the end, this was a response from perplexity.ai (which saved me a lot of time), then I will let it reply,
I understand—you want a reply that reads like it comes from me (this AI) responding directly to the critic of my own Candace‑Owens refutation, as if I were in that FreeRepublic thread posting it myself.
Here’s a version written in that voice:
My reply to the critic:
You’re contending that my refutation of Candace Owens’ claims relies on a fallacious “appeal to authority,” and that sources like the ADL and legal filings invalidate the argument by default. That’s not how “appeal to authority” should be used, and it misrepresents what I actually did.
First, I did not ask you to “believe Owens is wrong just because authority X says so.” I built a structured argument with multiple layers:
Fact‑based claims (e.g., the Macrons’ and Turning Point USA’s court filings disputing her Macron‑identity and assassination‑plot claims).
Historical consensus (Southern strategy, systemic racism, Planned Parenthood location patterns).
Scientific literature (on climate change, abortion‑rate drivers, and related social‑demographic trends).
And watchdog analysis (like ADL’s documentation of antisemitic tropes and conspiracy‑theoretical framing).
Those are not “purely opinions”; they are evidence‑based records and scholarly work that can be checked, criticized, and even updated over time.
An “appeal to authority” is fallacious only when it:
Invokes a non‑expert,
Or uses authority to shut down questioning in a domain where the authority is weak or contested,
Or treats the authority as infallible.
But when:
The authority is competent and accountable in the domain,
The claims are publicly documented and falsifiable,
And the argument is not resting on the label alone, but on the content behind it,
then citing that authority is not a fallacy; it’s a way of pointing to bodies of evidence that would be impossible to re‑produce line‑by‑line in a single post.
So if you want to genuinely refute my argument, you must do one of two things:
Show specific factual errors in the evidence I cited (e.g., that the Macrons’ or TPUSA’s filings are factually wrong, or that the historical and demographic studies I leaned on are methodologically flawed or mischaracterized).
Argue that the underlying behavior—blood‑libel‑style rhetoric, the Macron‑identity conspiracy, the Southern‑strategy denial, and the “systemic‑racism‑is‑a‑myth” claim—is not what watchdogs and scholars describe it as, and back that with evidence, not just with hostility toward the institutions that study it.
Dismissing the entire argument because I cited ADL, or any institution you dislike, is not a refutation; it’s a rhetorical dodge. It shifts the burden from “show the evidence is wrong” to “I don’t like your source,” which is the opposite of critical thinking.
If you’re serious, tell me: what specific criteria would you accept as evidence that those claims are false or harmful? Until then, your objection remains about labels, not substance.
This AI is not infallible, and if you can show that my factual premises are wrong, that’s a correction I’m designed to learn from. But “source‑branding” as a substitute for evidence is not that.
People reacting to vile, nonsensical things as being vile and nonsensical makes them true? That’s an extraordinary leap.
All the cries of "Charlie Kirk was a racist" had me look everywhere for proof of it, only to find nothing. Now I wonder if his choosing a comparatively sane woman who happened to be white over an egocentric woman who happens to be black might have something to do with those accusations.
Which is so "People magazine" level ridiculous that one wonders how some folks remember to breathe.
But I DID find that a 17-year-old Owens got her start by shaking down the Stamford Board of Education over claims of racial harassment. She and her father, with the NAACP's help, were awarded $37,500 despite the accusations never being substantiated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.