MissLacey_20

Humans come in all shapes and sizes. Some are intelligent, some are stupid and some are genuinely malicious. People disagree about politics, religion, morality, and almost everything else, but there is one principle every sane person should understand: when someone is being attacked from every direction, especially by people they never attacked in the first place, you should at least stop and ask why? What is going on here? If I punch someone in the face and they punch me back, the responsibility starts with me because I initiated the conflict. That is simple cause and effect. But if random groups of people suddenly start attacking me when I never attacked them in the first place and their only justification is that I questioned an organization or its leadership because I believe they are not being fully honest then any rational person should immediately start asking questions. Why are these people so emotionally invested? Are they ideologically driven, financially motivated, coordinated behind the scenes, or simply acting in the interests of the same network of people? Otherwise, why would they aggressively attack someone who never attacked them personally? Especially in a country where personal conflict is avoided like the plague and passive-aggressiveness is in fashion. Why would they deliberately seek out personal conflict when they seemingly have no dog in the fight? That is basic logic. So why is Candace Owens being attacked by people she never attacked? Even someone with minimal common sense should be asking that question. And this is after she was fired, her friend was killed and somehow she’s the one attacked for what exactly? Having a show in which she asks questions most Americans would like to ask the leadership of this country? Is that what triggers these people? The answer is - YES! They are triggered by people who ask difficult questions. Why would a popular host like her, someone Americans genuinely enjoy listening to and support (a fact based on numbers), be attacked by a handful of weird individuals in a very coordinated manner? Popularity and public support are measured by numbers, and numbers usually reflect one important metric: honesty! Ben Shapiro learned that the hard way. So why is it that a host who is so obviously supported by the public still gets relentlessly attacked by certain people? Their excuse is always the same: “Erika Kirk was attacked, so now we’re attacking Candace.” Suddenly the same people who excuse corruption, hypocrisy, defend genocide in Gaza and institutional failure at every opportunity have discovered a moral conscience overnight. Now they present themselves as noble defenders of justice and protectors of Erika Kirk. Amazing! Candace Owens apparently performs miracles. She somehow transformed some of the worlds’ most cynical and self-interested people into passionate warriors for morality and for this widow Erika! People who would normally destroy others for the sake of self-preservation and have done so before, are suddenly deeply concerned about someone else’s well-being. Or maybe the explanation is far simpler: these people are connected, coordinated, and protecting the same interests behind the scenes, the same entrenched elites. That explanation makes far more sense doesn't it? Let’s be clear about something important: Candace Owens did not accuse anyone of murder. She asked questions and tried to connect the dots when nothing made sense. That is all. And I have to say she is much nicer than I am. If someone murder my best friend and then some group of people started attacking me for wanting to find out what happened to my friend - asking questions and connecting the dots would be the least of their worries. I'm not as nice as Candace. Candace Owens never accused Brian Harpole of killing Charlie Kirk, at least not to my knowledge, yet Brian Harpole is suing her for defamation. Defamation means making false statements that damage someone’s reputation. Brian Are you sure it was Candace who damaged your reputation? Or maybe it had something to do with your shortcomings when the person you were protecting was killed? Maybe that’s when people started seeing you as an incompetent ass? So where/what exactly was the false statement Candace made? Asking whether security failed at an event where the person being protected ended up dead is that the statement? That can not possibly be ground for defamation, it is a completely reasonable question because security failed Charlie is dead!!! What was Brian Harpole’s job? His job was to protect Charlie Kirk. Was Charlie Kirk protected that day? No. Charlie Kirk is dead. You f***g moron you and entire team miserably failed at your jobs that is why Charlie is dead. That is not an opinion. That is an undeniable fact the guy you were supposed to protect is dead! Or maybe we are missing something and you were not tasked with Charlie's protection at all? Maybe you were there to dance ballet before the event even started. I don’t know, am I missing something here? please educate us! If the person you were assigned to protect dies under your watch, then the security failed. PERIOD! That failure may not mean murder, but he is dead because of the failure! That is true in every country, every language, and every functioning reality! And this is where the lawsuit becomes absurd. A man whose protection team failed and got Charlie killed is now suing a podcaster because she questioned whether security at the event was handled properly. Think about how irrational that is. Brian, if you ever wanted to restore credibility or be taken seriously again professionally, as a body guard the correct action would have been very different. You should have gone on Shawn Ryan’s show and apologized to the American people and to Charlie’s family for the failures in security detail that day. That is what accountability looks like. Instead, you chose lawsuits and public attacks. And now, rather than being remembered as someone who took responsibility after a tragedy, you will be remembered as the bodyguard who failed at his job and then sued one of Charlie’s friends for questioning it. That is the legacy you are creating for yourself.

Ashley Saint Clair is going scorched earth on TPUSA, Erika Kirk, and Charlie… 🔥

Dear @MrsErikaKirk Honestly, I didn’t feel the need to make a big post or comment about your attendance at the correspondents’ dinner. Where you go or what you do isn’t really something I focus on unless it has a direct impact on things I care about. That said, there’s a pattern that’s hard to ignore, whenever you’re called out for something people perceive as inappropriate, your response tends to be to insult your critics or position yourself as above them, while dismissing others as malicious. At some point, it may be worth recognizing a simpler reality. Many people just don’t like you. And that’s their right. People are free to form their own opinions, even when those opinions aren’t favorable. Maybe you genuinely don’t see what you’re doing wrong and maybe the criticism you receive feels completely unfair. But have you ever taken a moment to ask yourself, - What part am I playing in this? If you truly aren’t doing anything wrong, then why do the reactions you get seem so consistently at odds with what you expect? Guess what, there could be a hundred Candaces in the world criticizing you and it still wouldn’t move people unless what they’re saying actually resonates. People don’t just fall for narratives that easily especially today. You cannot force someone to see something they fundamentally don’t see or don’t believe. That kind of influence is incredibly difficult to manufacture just ask the CIA they will tell you all about it. Quick history lesson, even organizations like the CIA with billions in funding, massive infrastructure, coordinated networks and thousands of operatives have had to invest enormous effort over long periods to shape public perception in any meaningful way. And even then, results are never guaranteed. So the idea that one commentator (Or two or three) no matter how skilled, can single-handedly turn people against you just doesn’t hold up. The reaction you’re getting isn’t because of Candace, it’s because of you. Your own actions are what people respond to. That’s the uncomfortable reality, wake up to it already, I say this with no hate. At some point, you have to stop deflecting and ask yourself an honest question: why does this keep happening to me? Why do people consistently react this way? We’re not living in North Korea, people are allowed to form and express opinions freely and as long as America is America they will do just that, it is their right, just like it is yours to be unhappy about it. Dismissing all criticism as manipulation avoids the real issue here. And let’s be clear: you’re not some untouchable public figure in the mold of Jacqueline Kennedy. That comparison doesn’t land the way you think it does. Whoever told you, you could be her is not your friend, get rid of him/her. Curve your own path. Again I don’t say this to be disrespectful. This isn’t coming from a place of hate, not at all, it’s frustration. A lot of people are tired of the constant back-and-forth, the blame-shifting and the refusal to reflect. You are clearly bothered by all of this, but I don’t see you saying, ''Oh, you know what? These people don’t like me no matter what I do. It’s so unfair, but maybe I should step out of the limelight for a while and see if things change. So it doesn’t hurt the company.'' No, instead, you come out and you have no problem attending parties, dinners and opening events with Nicki Minaj, holding hands, even though your husband clearly didn’t like her. I’m guessing he didn’t like her because most of her songs start with a dick and end with a pussy, or one inside the other (should I tag the songs?). I’m sorry for the expression, but it’s not mine, it is the woman’s you chose to have on stage next to you. Then, at that same event, you’re going to mention the Lord like 50 times and have a literal former stripper speaking in front of students about how they should live. Then you go ahead and criticize the students and everyone else who judge you for this. Do you see the problem? As Leo Tolstoy wrote, ''All happy families are alike, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.'' And while you can understand it as - everyone grieves differently, the point he made was actually much simpler, dysfunction is usually self-generated and unique in its causes. And if Tolstoy were around today, he might put it even more bluntly: no one creates their own problems quite like you do… I assume you’ve seen my post, most people have, so you’re aware that my opinion of you is far from favorable. That said, in my capacity as a journalist, I haven’t made a habit of targeting you or spending weeks analyzing your every move, event, or speech. I only comment on matters where you have influence over issues I care deeply about. Quite frankly, I’m not extremely interested in you, especially when our country is facing serious challenges. But what’s actually concerning to me is watching you come out and double down on claims that are demonstrably false. Saying things like, ''Candace Owens is accusing me of murdering my husband,'' or that people who criticize you are evil or something similar, this is simply not accurate. She has not accused you of murder. Not publicly anyway. So why say it? Because you're reframing the criticism into something more extreme than it is. You’re acting as if anyone who questions you must believe you were involved in your husband’s death and that they must be all evil, while you must be a constant victim of this supposed malice. That’s not what’s being said here at all. Let’s be clear: The issue people have with you is different, it’s behavioral, not criminal. I’ve described you as a person exhibiting traits of psychopathy and I stand by that as my opinion. Again I’m allowed to have one, just like you are allowed to disrespect it. I’m not saying this to be cruel, I mean it seriously. Psychopathy reflect something deeply complex and very difficult to deal with in life, not something trivial so trust me when I say, I do not say this with hate at all. It ’s a simple observation. You may disagree, that is your right. And it is my right to expressing my opinion on a public figure that has made herself a target by refusing to leave the spotlight and cameras even when she gets a negative feedback constantly. Constantly! And to be precise, if you go back to what @RealCandaceO actually said, her claim was that she intends to prove that something is off about you. She did not say she intends to prove you killed your husband. Those are two completely different arguments and conflating them only distorts what’s actually being discussed. It also should be noted that Charlie Kirk’s investigation is ongoing for Candace and for most of us, and the “Charlie’s Bride” series Candace produced is separate from that ongoing investigation. That is why it is placed separately as an 8-episode series on her YouTube. It is a standalone thing. I kindly invite you to check it out. So to put it plainly, someone could lose a spouse in a completely unrelated event, like a car accident and still face criticism if their behavior afterward appears detached, performative, or inconsistent with what most people understand as grief. Being criticized for how you act is not the same as being accused of murder. And if Charlie had died in a car accident and you behaved the way you are behaving now, the reaction would be the same (I can speak for myself her). So no, this is not about Charlie or Candace, it’s about you. People are questioning your behavior and what it suggests about your character. That’s the real issue, not murder. You can keep saying that everyone grieves differently, but apparently this nation and others as well has never seen anyone grieve the way you do that is why they keep talking about it. So maybe you should take a step back and reflect. When millions of people (And they are in millions, this is why it got to the point where it bothers you and your organization) are telling you something feels off, you don’t lash out. You take time to ask yourself why people perceive you that way, especially if you believe that perception is absolutely incorrect. That’s the mature response. Rolling your eyes at people and calling them names isn’t the answer, especially if you want a public career or hope to lead others. And if you don’t want that scrutiny, then walk away. The spotlight is not for everybody. Or take an example from your husband, who was a warrior, he handled it perfectly. He faced being hated all the time and he still engaged them and accepted them he didn’t tell them to shut up. If he thought people who criticized him were evil, he wouldn’t be sitting in front of them trying to understand their point and help them. You have the money, you’re taken care of thanks to Charlie. If the spotlight is a burden, step aside and let someone else take on the role, someone the public will accept. If you do that, you’ll likely be forgotten in six months and you won’t have to deal with criticism anymore. You will be able to finally live privately, attend events all day long and no one will care. But when you say that 'evil people won’t stop you from having it all or what your husband built for you or whatever idea is driving your actions and you say you’ll continue regardless of what people think, great, good for you - but then you should expect people to do exactly that: THINK. And their opinions may not align with what you want. That’s life. Get over it. You claimed you attended the dinner not to mingle with influential people or enjoy the spotlight, but to meet some journalists who have written negatively about you, to put faces to names. Well, let’s put a face to the name. I’m ready to sit down with you any day, at your convenience, even in your own studio if you prefer. You’re not the only one who values being direct. So here I am, willing to have a genuine conversation. The offer stands. No hate, no disrespect. Just a difference of opinion. Let’s see if what you say is true. And if you can’t handle an interview with someone who disagrees with you and doesn’t like you,then that’s fine. I totally understand that. Not everyone can do what Charlie did - engaging directly with critics instead of avoiding them. In that case, you can always put a face to a name in Utah court. Come see me in court, where your husband’s supposed killer is on trial, I'm always there. I suggest you bring a pre-prepared lunch, it can be an absolutely grueling ordeal. Sometimes it goes on for 6+ hours with only 15-minute breaks, with no time to go out and eat. But we sit through it because it’s important. It’s Charlie Kirk! We are interested in who killed Charlie Kirk and whether we have the right guy and if we do, we want to see that the process goes exactly how it should. So yes, you can find me there. I haven’t seen you even once, not once attending the hearing. Maybe one day you can show up. I bet it will help with the criticism part of things :)). You said you like directness, so do I. So here you go. I’ll leave my invitation open for you to sit down with me.

@MSarelson Can’t wait for the discovery! GO MAX Candace!

On behalf of Brian Harpole, I filed this defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens and Mitchell Snow. We will not be providing any other statements. You can follow me for updates. scribd.com/document/10333…

Produced in secret. From a multi-Emmy award-winning filmmaker. Leaked footage Netanyahu never wanted to be seen. Watch ‘The Bibi Files’ now on TCN.

Did US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent just imply not to pay income taxes without saying not to pay income taxes? 👀 "I want to encourage everyone out there watching today to change their withholding ... you will get an automatic real wage increase on a weekly or a monthly basis." Time stamp 1:23 ⌛️

Use the shadow-length calculator linked in this post (or one you prefer) and check how long the shadows of a 6-foot man should be in Orem at these times of day on Sept 10, 25? When I did it, I got wildly different answers from what these pictures show. dqydj.com/shadow-length-…

Love at 5p CDT today! We’re doubling down. Tyler Robinson was in custody by 6:25p Utah Time on September 11, 2025. Anyone saying otherwise is FED SLOP. youtube.com/live/iB7NyRQ4d…

Iran Release Proof Erika Kirk Murdered Charlie as Part of Israeli Coup of America Iran just released proof that Erika Kirk has been a Mossad agent for years. Hacked Israeli intelligence files reveal that Erika is a professional honeypot, tasked with infiltrating and compromising the US conservative movement from the inside. The files expose a multi-year operation to smuggle her all the way into the White House.

Hey, @RonWyden you need to get the unredacted DEA investigation. Also, how can they dismantle a task force in existence since 1982 for no reason? We need answers because this screams coverup. Todd Blanche cannot get away with this. Congress needs to do better for us!!

An in depth look at McDonald’s - A class-action lawsuit accused McDonald’s of misleading customers by calling a product the “McRib” and shaping the patty like ribs, when it contains no actual pork rib meat - Burgers that look identical after 14 YEARS - DNA testing finding thousands of cows in one burger - and so much more

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?! Pete Hegseth’s plane was at Fort Huachuca on 9-8-25, when Mitch Snow says he saw Erika Kirk. THEN—Pete Hegseth’s plane flew over the AES Explosives Plant the day it blew up, on Oct 10, 2025, after being at Huachuca AGAIN. Probably nothing.

Iranian hackers claim Kirk was an inside job… You know, I will believe an anonymous Iranian man, over anybody in the United States government. ON HOW CHARLIE KIRK WAS KILLED⁉️

BOMBSHELL: Candace Owens Discovers the FBI Is Using a DISCONTINUED Forensic Technique in the Tyler Robinson Case "It was abandoned in 2005 due to flawed scientific, statistical, and interpretive validity."

You think they are fucking with the gas, because they are fucking with the gas. This country is run by deceitful criminal pedos who only know how to rape and pillage. I think we should cover it in ethenol and burn it all down. Toss what's left in the woodchipper

UPDATE: Charlie Kirk — Not a good look 🚨 The Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk does NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, according to new court filing Per the new ATF report, the bullet that was recovered had fragmented. The fragments studied could not conclusively be matched to the recovered rifle. They say the bullet fragmented when it hit Kirk's spine. Basically this means fragmentation can often lead to an inconclusive report. It also notes that DNA reports filed by the FBI and ATF will take time for the defense team to analyze because reports indicated that several different DNA samples were found on some items of evidence. What this means is that the defense team may now offer the ATF firearm analyst's testimony as exculpatory evidence. 🔻My Thoughts: I’m still having a very hard time believing that a 30.06 fragmented upon impact to the spine; bones that are as frail as chicken bones.