Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

So Erika is not a “devout catholic” currently and Charlie was not considering converting. Both are/were evangelicals that simply appreciated the beauty of cathedrals (which many Protestants do!). Please take note of every account on here, like Bree Solstad & others, that shamelessly spread this gossip as facts. Remember...

1,511,315 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

The most SICKENING thing is how Charlie Kirk's entire show and company moved on like nothing ever even happened. Also, come to find out that Charlie Kirk had a CATHOLIC funeral and was buried in a CATHOLIC cemetery. Strange how they hid this information. Almost like it ruins their narrative and agenda that Charlie didn't just "like the architecture of Catholic churches," and shows that maybe Charlie was about to convert to Catholicism like we were told in the first place, but was then covered up. I will tell you that you first need to understand who these people really are and the control and funding behind them. Charlie started to steer away from what they wanted him to do. Charlie started to notice the TRUTH and the LIES and he started to tell the world. The people funding Charlie's company didn't like that and neither did the people under Charlie who were getting paid. Charlie chose the road of TRUTH, while the others chose not to lose the FUNDING of the DONORS and a plan was made that did not include Charlie, but Charlie owned the company. This was a major problem. Charlie was then eliminated and removed and TPUSA continues the direction that THEY wanted to go. Not CHARLIE'S direction or to push the TRUTH... The direction that the MONEY tells them to go and the agenda and narratives they are told to push. It's time to wake up from your slumber and understand that Charlie was assassinated for telling the truth and calling out the lies and corruption. They couldn't afford to be exposed, so they killed him. It's clear as day. cc: Candace Owens

The SCIF

203,485 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Andrew Kolvet explains to Dave Rubin that the "abhorrent, diabolical, and unprecedented" attacks on Erika Kirk are "demons shrieking in terror for realizing they had screwed up." Just about every person of good faith who appreciated Charlie Kirk felt for Erika, and was rooting for her and TPUSA in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Some fringe bad actors did not. However, in media appearance after media appearance Erika Kirk and others at TPUSA, including Blake Neff, Andrew Kolvet, Mikey McCoy, and others lied about details that happened leading up to, the day of, and after Charlie being killed. This has caused people to doubt, question, and lose trust in those individuals and the organization at large. Yes, Charlie's death did shine a light on something abhorrent and diabolical. Andrew Kolvet himself contributed to it, and Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, and Tucker Carlson have been slandered and threatened for daring to bring it up... that is the treatment that Charlie Kirk was receiving from his Zionist donors. They pulled their money, told him that God was going to smite him, called him an antisemite, and labeled him an extremist. The "demons" that I see shrieking are those who were making Charlie's life a living hell in it's last months. Dave Rubin was one of them. What's even worse, and something I cannot understand, is why Erika and those at TPUSA have just continued on with these people. No cutting donors who harrassed him, no firing those who failed to protect him, just Zionist business as usual... They are now even using Charlie to push certain agendas he fought against while he was alive. They claim to be carrying on his legacy, but many see them as trying to hijack or rewrite it. They then turn around and say anyone questioning this or "attacking" Erika for doing so is evil.

Zach Costello

34,507 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

“I can’t speak on whether he was close to converting…I do think from what I’ve been told that he was planning on signing up and starting that process [of becoming Catholic]. But I did not personally have that conversation with him…” A few things: Candace says she can’t speak on whether Charlie was close to converting to Catholicism—and then immediately goes on to speak about how she thinks he was close to converting. 🙄 Additionally, the first time she ever spoke about this (September 15th, see the 2nd clip below) she suggested he was close to converting. Because it’s Candace, she didn’t come right out and say, but she said he “was on the verge of changing some of his beliefs” and then went on to speak about how he was praying the rosary and attending mass. She also referenced him “taking that last step.” All of those things paired together imply (again without outright saying) he was close to converting. She also said in the same episode he was “too smart to be Protestant.” Mind you, this was FIVE DAYS after Charlie had been murdered. Charlie’s parents are Protestant. His wife was raised Catholic but is now Protestant. And whether you think he was close to converting or not, Charlie died Protestant. Her saying that FIVE DAYS after his murder was callous and tone deaf. This is how Candace makes things always and all about herself. This was in fact the first thing that clued me in that something was seriously wrong, after previously being her fan. Today, she doubled down on her implications that Charlie was close to converting (even though again she’d just said she couldn’t speak on that). She said she and Charlie were having conversations about it, but the only evidence she’s ever presented is a single vague text allegedly from him and dated February 2024. The problem is that Charlie went on to reiterate he was evangelical and all of his issues with the Catholic faith this year, in the months leading up to his death. Indeed, one of the final things he said on this earth the day he died was that he was evangelical. So even if he sent that text to Candace in February of 2024, it’s clear he wasn’t that convicted and that she read more into it than was actually meant. Because again, this year, in 2025, he was reaffirming his evangelical faith. Lastly, Candace admitted today that she heard from someone else that Charlie was becoming Catholic (likely Bishop Joseph Brennan). But if she and Charlie were already having conversations about the possibility of him converting (as she claims they were), why wouldn’t he tell Candace directly? Especially when again they allegedly were already having conversations about it? Please listen to what this woman actually says from one month, one week, one day to the next. And parse it out. Hear what she’s saying and also what she’s not saying. Determine what she’s implying. Compare herself to herself. And see if she makes sense to you, if she provides clarity to you, if she provides evidence. Not just on the subject of Charlie converting but on all subjects pertaining to this “investigation.” Finally, this has NOTHING to do with who murdered Charlie and why. I’m tired of talking about it, but she keeps being dishonest about what she actually said, again a mere five days after his murder.

Natalie Jean Beisner

42,540 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

This masterful clip from Mark A. Garcia is a MUST WATCH for all Protestants who engage with Roman Catholics. “Roman Catholic is not ever to be confused with old, or patristic, or medieval, or even pre-Reformational. We need to be very careful to avoid falling prey to that mindset which suggests Roman Catholic is everything up to the Reformation, and Protestant is everything from the Reformation forward. That, in fact, gives away the whole argument to Roman Catholics in the very context at issue of the Reformation and post-Reformation assemblies, who really is teaching, professing, believing, and worshipping in terms of the one faith, one holy catholic and apostolic church, the one faith given through scripture to the church. Roman Catholicism, technically speaking, is an innovation which takes its historic point ofdeparture at the Council of Trent. Not until the 1540s and following, at the Council of Trent, when the church represented in that assembly definitively and publicly ruled out of its communion what we now, as a result, call Protestant churches, not until they had taken this ecclesiastical action, public and objective action, to rule out of the visible church, those we now call Protestants, was there even such a thing inmeaningful terms as a Roman Catholic Church? As a result of that action, you see, they not only created Protestantism as a side, as a byproduct, as a consequence of that action, theyalso created themselves as the Roman Catholic Church.” Credits: Greystone Theological Institute - Rescuing Mary From Rome

Mason Craig

52,194 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад