Kiera Lance

Please remember, our souls are literally on the line. Let’s behave in ways worthy of our calling.

@ProjectConstitu @CharlotteLee_88 This is really inappropriate.

‼️THE UNTOUCHABLE WIDOW? Erika Kirk's CREEPY Instagram Post They Wan't YOU To Forget! 🧐 This image of Erika Kirk and her daughter, originally posted on March 11, 2024, has become a flashpoint for every "Truth Seeker" in the Charlie Kirk case. While the media paints a picture of a grieving widow, the timeline and the optics tell a different story to those who are actually paying attention. This post went up exactly 6 months before the UVU event. Looking back at her feed from early 2024, the "family-first" branding was being dialed up to 100 just as Charlie was shifting his views on the "Foreign Nexus" and the neocon donor class. By positioning herself and her child as the ultimate symbols of untouchable grief, Erika is attempting to weaponize our empathy. She is wielding her identity as a widow and mother in a calculated maneuver. Using her kids as a shield to SHAME and silence anyone asking legitimate questions about the security failures, the grounded drones, and the TPUSA finances at the time of Charlie’s assassination. Let’s never forget the history of this phrase in this exact context. Charlie Kirk himself used the phrase EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL just months before he was killed while describing the pressure being put on him behind the scenes by Zionist neocon donors. He was being emotionally blackmailed to abandon "America First" principles, to remove figures like Tucker Carlson from TPUSA events, and to fall back into line with the same neocon establishment that legacy media outlets (like Bari Weiss’s "Town Hall" and CBS) are currently protecting. Using her daughter as a prop to shut down investigative journalism is the oldest trick in the book. If you care about your daughter’s future, wouldn't you want to know if the "Foreign Nexus" was involved in her father's death? The legacy media calls it "peddling conspiracies." We call it NOTICING. We aren't going to stop asking questions. We aren't going to accept a scripted PR narrative over the undeniable anomalies of that day. Erika Kirk can use whatever shield she chooses, but Remember "Truth" doesn't need a PR firm to protect it. Shoutout to @CharlotteLee_88 FOLLOW Her!

@truedavidgravy @Jordan_S90 You are right. Differences can be addressed without resorting to name callings.

@KieraLance22 @Jordan_S90 I've never come across anything in my Bible that suggests you should go around calling people evil demons because they disagree with you about politics.

Candace Owens’s cultists be like: “All you Erika Kirk defenders sound exactly the same! Why does it feel like if I’ve talked to one of you, I’ve talked to all of you?! You all just shit on Candace!” Uhhhh, yeah? We all unanimously agree that slandering an innocent widow of conspiring to murder her husband and the father of her children with no evidence is one of the most evil things you can possibly do. I know that comes as such a shock to your nonexistent conscience that so many like-minded people agree on this simple truth.

@ShemekaMichelle @baroncoleman So now we ARE supposed to judge people by how they look?

Andrew Kolvet looks shifty in the eyes. Can’t wait to see what @baroncoleman uncovers.

@Porky_Logan @RealCalvin1 The post you provided as evidence I was wrong.

@KieraLance22 @RealCalvin1 You're not "with some specific exceptions"-ing your way out of it. Its OK to get it wrong...

Alex Jones lost his studio because he said Sandy Hook didn't happen/was a hoax. I can't wait for the same to happen to Candace for all she's baselessly claimed about Erika.

@Porky_Logan @RealCalvin1 Your own post is what says that.

@faithful_erika @Jordan_S90 I, nor you, have any access to anything that would help us make those determinations. And of Candace had anything, she would have gotten them to the proper authorities instead of trickling it out across seven months for clicks.

@KieraLance22 @Jordan_S90 Too bad you don’t care to find out the facts for yourself. Too busy believing what the gov wants you too

Get a load of this! I asked a Candace Owens cultist if she believes Erika Kirk conspired to murder her husband, Charlie Kirk. Rather than providing any evidence, she said, “I don’t have any evidence, but I know it’s true on a cellular level that Erika Kirk took part in the elimination of her husband.” Is that what we’re going with now? Forget evidence—you know it’s true on a cellular level? That rolls off the tongue much better than “we don’t know, but we know.” You can’t make this stuff up. These people are such clowns.

@faithful_erika @Jordan_S90 My opinion in any of this doesn’t matter. Only facts. Accusing someone of complicity in a murder is a big deal.

@KieraLance22 @Jordan_S90 I think you’ve seen clips of what others have tried to misconstrued. If you saw what she actually has your opinion just might be different

@faithful_erika @Jordan_S90 I have. I’ve seen a lot of opinion and promises to reveal names and evidence later. Which never seems to happen. The gap between opinion and evidence is a big problem.

@KieraLance22 @Jordan_S90 It’s very possible that you have never once seen her show or the evidence she has

@faithful_erika @Jordan_S90 Is it possible…. That it’s because she has no evidence?

@KieraLance22 @Jordan_S90 Yes she has, they have not responded. Go see for yourself what she has

@faithful_erika @Jordan_S90 That’s called “accomplice to the crime” which is legally considered the same as if you had done the deed itself. Again… what evidence did Candace present that made you believe her… and has she submitted this evidence to the proper authorities?

@KieraLance22 @Jordan_S90 She didnt, she partook in the setup

@Porky_Logan @RealCalvin1 Read the part in your message there that says “with some specific exceptions”

I just plugged your statement into a AI and asked if it was accurate. No, that statement is not entirely accurate. The American legal system has a more nuanced approach to false statements and their relationship to free speech. In the United States, the First Amendment provides broad protection for speech, including false statements, with some specific exceptions: Defamation: False statements that harm someone's reputation can be legally challenged through defamation lawsuits (libel for written statements, slander for spoken statements). However, these are civil matters, not criminal prohibitions on speech. Public figures vs. private individuals: The Supreme Court has established different standards for defamation cases. Public figures must prove "actual malice" - that the false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Private individuals only need to show negligence. Not all false statements are unprotected: Many types of false statements remain protected speech, including: Opinions (even if they imply false facts) Hyperbole and rhetorical exaggeration Parody and satire Unintentional errors Limited criminal exceptions: Only very narrow categories of false statements are criminally prohibited, such as perjury, fraud, false advertising, and in some jurisdictions, false statements to law enforcement. The American system generally prefers to address harmful false statements through civil litigation (defamation lawsuits) rather than through criminal prosecution or prior restraint, reflecting a strong commitment to free speech principles even when speech is false or potentially harmful.

@faithful_erika @Jordan_S90 Has she sent this evidence to law enforcement?

@KieraLance22 @Jordan_S90 Yes absolutely, Candace has proof.

@faithful_erika @Jordan_S90 And that she partook in it. So, you think she helped others kill him? Based on what?

@KieraLance22 @Jordan_S90 No, that she knew the plan and that she partook in it

@Porky_Logan @RealCalvin1 Why don’t you?

@KieraLance22 @RealCalvin1 C'mon Kiera....this is easily verified. Look it up before you post.

@faithful_erika @Jordan_S90 Evidence that Erika killed Charlie?

@Jordan_S90 There is so much evidence that’s it’s impossible to put into words on here. Maybe go watch her show and you’ll see for yourself own self instead of spreading propaganda

@Jordan_S90 On a…. Cellular level.

@seferfeed2 @Fair_and_Biased @Jess4u What are you basing your questions on

@KieraLance22 @Fair_and_Biased @Jess4u I think you are confused about the difference between questions and evidence. I didnt say I saw thru anything actually. A lot of people just hve questions and then get demonized and lied about like you just did to me. Thn we ask why is this person freaking out for just askin

The conspiracy theorists want us to believe that: 1.) Charlie was killed for a text message voicing a moment of frustration. 2.) It was also a vast government conspiracy involving the Trump admin and Israel. 3.) His organization and wife were also in on it. 4.) They planned all this in two days after the text and found a gender confused patsy. 5.) But they’d also been planning it for months based on Charlie’s position on Iran. 6.) And maybe they were planning it for years and his whole relationship with Erika was a front. It’s such low IQ nonsense.

@Porky_Logan @RealCalvin1 False statements presented as fact that harm someone’s reputation are not considered free speech in America.

@KieraLance22 @RealCalvin1 I dont even know what means....do you?