As emotional as I was during the whole event, rewatching has set off Spidey senses. I'm not gonna lie. Something feels off about her. Trump even felt awkward about her embrace. I love Charlie Kirk. She gives me the Righteous Gemstones feel.
Same for me Anon. I still don't know what to make of her. Something is off but I, for now, write it off as she is being "advised." It was a very, very, critical point and "they" couldn't have her out there speaking randomly. It had to be controlled and precise to keep a certain amount of balance. And narrative control. Buuuut there is a nefarious feel to her. Time will tell.
I'm so torn by it. I was moved and affected tremendously by his death. I was moved by her speeches because I was overcome with pain, much like everyone else. I've been there losing a spouse at a young age and I don't remember much of the eulogy I gave, because I was on autopilot and in a fog. Everyone said they couldn't believe how composed I was and that I did such a great job. Truthfully I don't know how I did it. And that was with an expected death with a 5 year battle with cancer. Even though I knew it was coming, I was still never prepared, and the shock and realization that she was gone hit me like a tank. Her's was very unexpected even though they probably always knew there was a slight probability someone could attempt it. So I want to give her grace in that, and hope that she was given the power and strength of the Holy Spirit
It's the overdramatization that when I rewatch her that sticks me.
This battle has taken it's toll on me and now I'm probably seeing things that are not there because I'm skeptical of everything. I hope I'm wrong on her.
As someone who had no idea who Charlie Kirk was before his death, this entire spectacle has seemed "off" to me since it began. The emotional outpourings, flags nearly immediately at half staff, what felt like a huge PR push, people all over YouTube lauding CK. It just seemed so over the top, and still does.
I understand what you are saying about autopilot and I too will not pass judgment but I also will not be blind to possibilities. I'm on the sidelines with this one. Just observing. I kind of had to check myself and my emotions a little bit that day. That's pretty rare for me. I've seen some pretty horrific shit in my days.
That's my thing. Trumps no dummy. He's a showman. A real tender moment with that embrace could have set a positive image world wide. Look at how caring Trump is" Instead people noticed it immediately.
If anything, the one thing that bothered me during the memorial was....everything seemed "okay"...until the sudden "devil's horn" gesture (which some interpreted to be "I love you", but it is also a variation of devil's horn)...it was out of place, and made me feel very uneasy
SUMMARY: VIDEO ANALYSIS ON ERICA KIRK’S SPEECH AND BEHAVIOR
An in-depth critique of Erica Kirk’s public statement following Charlie Kirk’s alleged death. The speaker argues it was staged, emotionally manipulative, and crafted for optics — not genuine grief.
ACTING & PERFORMANCE BREAKDOWN
Over-gesturing ("Vanna White effect") — exaggerated movements trying to sell emotion
Repetition of emotional phrases — “every day,” “you have no idea” repeated like a script
Single-eye dabbing — unnatural, inconsistent with real tear flow
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES
Unlikely cognitive clarity — a 17-minute monologue just days after trauma
Trivial memory recall — referencing sports teams and schedules under grief strain
Calm and composed — demeanor doesn’t align with acute grief or shock
TECHNICAL & PRODUCTION RED FLAGS
Audio static — appears artificially added to simulate raw footage
Styled appearance — full hair and makeup two days after event raises suspicion
Metadata concerns — questions about actual recording date and editing
BEHAVIORAL RED FLAGS IDENTIFIED
Whispering and dramatic pauses — designed to seem spiritual
Gestures synced with speech — resembles rehearsed acting
Sudden tone shifts — grief flipping to calmness on cue
Humor and laughter — out of place in a eulogy
Religious and mythic language — framing her role as a divine mission
Turning Point USA promotion — seen as opportunistic and poorly timed
SYMBOLIC AND LINGUISTIC DEVICES
Mythic framing — phrases like “this wife” and “battle cry” recast her grief into activism
Martyr narrative — portraying Charlie’s death as a noble, voluntary sacrifice
Religious and political cues — repeated mentions of Trump and TPUSA used to galvanize
FINAL ASSESSMENT
"The whole thing felt like a circus — performance cues replacing emotion, a spectacle instead of sorrow."
Compared to historic examples like Jackie Kennedy or Coretta Scott King, Erica’s speech lacks authenticity
The entire event seemed orchestrated — optics over honesty, control over chaos
Emotion felt choreographed to manipulate perception and shut down skepticism
The whole event from shooting up to now seems contrived. But what am I supposed to do? Just flat out ignore all the red flags and inconsistencies, play the part of an NPC sheep? Because it furthers the fight to the right side. Doesn't that go against anything and everything we've been trying to get away from? Buying narratives hook line and sinker. Just because it makes the right team look better? I can't, I'm too deep into looking at things from a non emotional perspective. If the whole thing really happened, I'm sad for everyone involved, but it doesn't appear that way and I can't just turn into a follower because it's the plan.
You think the right isn't completely captured? Have you looked into the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church? Do you know the history of the Jesuits? Can we all agree the Vatican is extremely powerful and corrupt?
Erika Kirk went to a Jesuit college and proudly said so. Her parents are government agents. She ran a sketchy "orphanage" in Romania. Can we do the fucking math?
Those are some very uncomfortable but important truths. I'm saying that as someone who thinks Candace Owens is 100% sincere and determined to find out what really happened to her dear friend. Yet, I agree with everything you said. I already know you're aware enough to know where I'm coming from (maybe even more than I am).
But why is Erika Kirk a no-go zone for Candace? Candace's viewers keep asking her to look at Erika and Candace refuses. Candace will just say some niceties about how sweet Erika is and move on. Meanwhile Erika is the biggest red flag about the whole operation and sends you into Jesuit territory, child trafficking and so on.
I think at this point it's strategic. I think Candace more than anything wants to find out what really happened and going after Erika could create distractions. I think she hinted at Erika on one of her latest videos saying the whole TPUSA response hasn't made any sense.
I really think Candace is sincere on everything she covers and is right about the vast majority of it. Having said that her husband has advanced degrees from one of the oldest and most prestigious Jesuit universities in the world. The possibility of what I'm suggesting is a long game level of determined evil that I think even some GAW anons aren't wanting to acknowledge.
I question what happened but haven't commented on it as I still think it's too soon for me to form an educated guess. Speaking for myself only, in that respect.
When my grandfather died, I was forced to kiss him goodbye. And although I have seen many people laid out for viewing, I will never touch another corpse. Grandpa was cold, his skin hard, like a stiff plastic. No wrinkles and makeup.
Per a mortician- the plastic look to the hands is typical. While the mortician wasn't enthusiastic about the skill level of the make up job, the waxy / plastic look was well within the range of how a corpse would look.
Wrong opinions. There are strong women and weak women. The opinions are coming from a weak woman. The women in my family were and are not weak. Erika is a strong woman. She actually had to fall back on her acting skills to soften her strength. And it was was a kind of required prepared statement. Most of it was probably not written by her.
I applaud your level denial and the size of the blinders you have on. I'm guessing this is the very first video you've seen on how bullshit the entire "assassination" was?
I'm guessing you also bought the text messages the FBI released, hook, line and sinker?
Nope. I think there was a second shooter. And Charlie’s right hand went for his right neck like a reaction to the bullet impact, but didn’t even get there. Like he was switched off. Lots of strange stuff besides that. So much that I took a step back. I am waiting for the dust to settle a bit and more pieces of the puzzle to emerge.
Originally, she was harsh toward Charlie's killer ("You have no idea what you have unleashed") then became soft at the memorial service ("I forgive you" while dabbing her eyes). Both felt staged. Also, the pyrotechnics at the memorial service when she was announced ("Please welcome to the stage..."). Very odd... but then, none of this has made any sense. The whole ordeal feels like a script better left unwritten.
IMHO Erika is phenomenally suited / trained for the type of public speaking she has been doing.
The drama, the whispering, etc. is very effective. Perhaps she rehearsed her speeches. I rehearsed all of my important briefings and speeches, including a eulogy for one of my troopers who was killed in an auto accident. In things like that, one must get the tone right -- despite the stress and anxiety inherent in giving that kind of a speech, the speaker must . . . perform. Yes, perform, after rehearsals, follow the prepared script, rather than break down into a blubbering mass of protoplasm on the floor.
That is responsibility, that is control, that is discipline, to execute the eulogy for the deceased, in respect of the deceased, to get the tribute expressed. Which is more important than the speaker's uncontrolled emotions . . .
So yes, she is an "actress" and very effective, following a prepared and rehearsed script. That does NOT mean she did not mean every single word! She just took it upon herself to deliver that message as best as possible.
She probably had a coach, unless she is a very well trained speaker.
Thinking along the same lines. Why do people think she would be perfectly composed and behave normally in that situation - speaking to the entire world about her husband's death only days after she witnessed it happen.
If the speech seems rehearsed it's because she rehearsed it. How else could a human being possibly deliver a speech under those conditions?
And to your point, she has made a career of public speaking. In such an emotional situation it seems natural that a person would lean hard on their methods, to the point of seeming a bit detached.
I feel the same. It is the most important speech of her entire life and she must represent her small family well to a world wide audience of millions and millions of people - and someone is surprised that she had a speech coach or practiced the speech before delivering it. This isn't a eulogy to a few dozen family and friends - it's a professional speech in support of a political movement. She was also burdened with how to prevent Charlie's followers from going against his will and killing people, possibly triggering a civil war which our foreign enemies have been trying to foment for years. She did an amazing job.
Erika is a strong woman. Strong women are not blubbers, at least in public. She had to fall back on her acting to soften her speech. Otherwise, the left would be screaming heartless.
there's some fake anons on GAW, real shills and Johnny come lately
Wait for it you'll see them stumble in here. "hurgurburger, wchhhhat's this?! Someone isn't buying muyyyy approved official narrative? IVE INVESTED MY WHOLE SOUL INTO THAT NARRATIVE! Now TAKE a downdoot and IF IM FEELING BRAVE, MAYYYBE a snarky little one-liner in the comments! HMPH
I felt that she was faking her grief at the memorial. Fake tears, careful blotting of eyes and nose. No disturbance in makeup, no red eyes, no tear tracks down her cheeks. Either Charlie is not dead, or she is glad because she will make a lot of money.
The left is the most callous and hateful people on the planet. The woman loses her husband and father of her young children and all they can do is criticize her. If you ever wondered who Satan has on his side, look to the left.
This has nothing to do with strong vs weak. But nature vs scripting. Perhaps that is what TV recordings do: Take the soul of of things. I did not get any sense of nature from this.
I ain't buying and I do not need to. I can simply put this aside and reference it later. There are too many peculiar details that cloud a clear explanation of her behavior.
She gets 6-8 months from me. I discount whatever she does that looks weird for those first 6-8 months. I watched my mom after my dad died, I know how I was after my husband died. Neither of us saw them murdered in front of us. It's a different grief losing your spouse. Until you lose yours, you don't have much room to say shit. Does that mean I'm not watching? Will I be surprised if there's more? Nope. Just means I've seen widows do really strange shit after just losing their spouse.
Haven't watched this yet but my gut reaction to Erika Kirk was that she is a devious liar and a narcissist. That doesn't necessarily make her an enemy agent, though.
Whoever this commenter is, if she is an actress, she is not a skilled one and is probably rehearsed.
She is inauthentic. No thespian on the planet (including high school 1 performance actors) would EVER misuse the phrase "willing suspension of disbelief". This is what the audience does, not the actor or speaker.
Her use is like someone claiming to be from the Royal Billy Shakesphere company.
Case in point:
Hair and makeup: Of course Mrs. Kirk is in full hair and makeup. Not just any makeup either, that is done for the camera rather than indoor daytime light makeup. Just like a beauty queen that has done TV work would have. Oh, my she IS a Beauty queen with media experience. It would be out of character for her to appear any other way.
Gestures: Dramatic training and public speaking would make these a natural. By contrast watch youTube or Instagram of women speaking about cosmetics or trying to sell something. Gestures there are very exaggerated and distracting. Mrs. Kirk was doing 2 things simultaneously: speaking to an audience at a distance and to the camera, which is an intimate distance. She hit a happy medium.
Features a hitman that has no emotional state, discovers acting while on the job.
The best thing about Barry is the bad acting that leads into amazing acting shots. The show really exposes the base narcism of life in LA. It does this in an entertain way and the show gets dumber as you explore the characters their motivations.
As emotional as I was during the whole event, rewatching has set off Spidey senses. I'm not gonna lie. Something feels off about her. Trump even felt awkward about her embrace. I love Charlie Kirk. She gives me the Righteous Gemstones feel.
Same for me Anon. I still don't know what to make of her. Something is off but I, for now, write it off as she is being "advised." It was a very, very, critical point and "they" couldn't have her out there speaking randomly. It had to be controlled and precise to keep a certain amount of balance. And narrative control. Buuuut there is a nefarious feel to her. Time will tell.
I'm so torn by it. I was moved and affected tremendously by his death. I was moved by her speeches because I was overcome with pain, much like everyone else. I've been there losing a spouse at a young age and I don't remember much of the eulogy I gave, because I was on autopilot and in a fog. Everyone said they couldn't believe how composed I was and that I did such a great job. Truthfully I don't know how I did it. And that was with an expected death with a 5 year battle with cancer. Even though I knew it was coming, I was still never prepared, and the shock and realization that she was gone hit me like a tank. Her's was very unexpected even though they probably always knew there was a slight probability someone could attempt it. So I want to give her grace in that, and hope that she was given the power and strength of the Holy Spirit
It's the overdramatization that when I rewatch her that sticks me.
This battle has taken it's toll on me and now I'm probably seeing things that are not there because I'm skeptical of everything. I hope I'm wrong on her.
As someone who had no idea who Charlie Kirk was before his death, this entire spectacle has seemed "off" to me since it began. The emotional outpourings, flags nearly immediately at half staff, what felt like a huge PR push, people all over YouTube lauding CK. It just seemed so over the top, and still does.
I knew of Charlie Kirk, and I knew he threw many libs into fits - and still does - but I didn't like how parasitic both sides seemed on this.
Sorry for your loss fren.
I understand what you are saying about autopilot and I too will not pass judgment but I also will not be blind to possibilities. I'm on the sidelines with this one. Just observing. I kind of had to check myself and my emotions a little bit that day. That's pretty rare for me. I've seen some pretty horrific shit in my days.
I thought Trump did not want her makeup all over his suit coat! I thought that because I saw a real rejection the hugs with long enough.
That's my thing. Trumps no dummy. He's a showman. A real tender moment with that embrace could have set a positive image world wide. Look at how caring Trump is" Instead people noticed it immediately.
If anything, the one thing that bothered me during the memorial was....everything seemed "okay"...until the sudden "devil's horn" gesture (which some interpreted to be "I love you", but it is also a variation of devil's horn)...it was out of place, and made me feel very uneasy
This picture captured everything
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G264IQUWEAAOfVQ?format=jpg&name=medium
The strangely timed gesture and Trump's reaction
SUMMARY: VIDEO ANALYSIS ON ERICA KIRK’S SPEECH AND BEHAVIOR
An in-depth critique of Erica Kirk’s public statement following Charlie Kirk’s alleged death. The speaker argues it was staged, emotionally manipulative, and crafted for optics — not genuine grief.
ACTING & PERFORMANCE BREAKDOWN
Over-gesturing ("Vanna White effect") — exaggerated movements trying to sell emotion
Repetition of emotional phrases — “every day,” “you have no idea” repeated like a script
Single-eye dabbing — unnatural, inconsistent with real tear flow
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES
Unlikely cognitive clarity — a 17-minute monologue just days after trauma
Trivial memory recall — referencing sports teams and schedules under grief strain
Calm and composed — demeanor doesn’t align with acute grief or shock
TECHNICAL & PRODUCTION RED FLAGS
Audio static — appears artificially added to simulate raw footage
Styled appearance — full hair and makeup two days after event raises suspicion
Metadata concerns — questions about actual recording date and editing
BEHAVIORAL RED FLAGS IDENTIFIED
Whispering and dramatic pauses — designed to seem spiritual
Gestures synced with speech — resembles rehearsed acting
Sudden tone shifts — grief flipping to calmness on cue
Humor and laughter — out of place in a eulogy
Religious and mythic language — framing her role as a divine mission
Turning Point USA promotion — seen as opportunistic and poorly timed
SYMBOLIC AND LINGUISTIC DEVICES
Mythic framing — phrases like “this wife” and “battle cry” recast her grief into activism
Martyr narrative — portraying Charlie’s death as a noble, voluntary sacrifice
Religious and political cues — repeated mentions of Trump and TPUSA used to galvanize
FINAL ASSESSMENT
"The whole thing felt like a circus — performance cues replacing emotion, a spectacle instead of sorrow."
Compared to historic examples like Jackie Kennedy or Coretta Scott King, Erica’s speech lacks authenticity
The entire event seemed orchestrated — optics over honesty, control over chaos
Emotion felt choreographed to manipulate perception and shut down skepticism
Wow! Thank you. You have a gift. No way I could have done that so thoroughly, succinctly, and quickly.
The gift is a ChatGPT subscription! Thanks for posting the video, great research
Ahah. That made me grin. Still very appreciated and very helpful. : -)
"Emotion felt choreographed to manipulate perception and shut down skepticism"
At least for me it just revved up my skepticism even more. To be blunt, it all seems very fake and choreographed.
The whole event from shooting up to now seems contrived. But what am I supposed to do? Just flat out ignore all the red flags and inconsistencies, play the part of an NPC sheep? Because it furthers the fight to the right side. Doesn't that go against anything and everything we've been trying to get away from? Buying narratives hook line and sinker. Just because it makes the right team look better? I can't, I'm too deep into looking at things from a non emotional perspective. If the whole thing really happened, I'm sad for everyone involved, but it doesn't appear that way and I can't just turn into a follower because it's the plan.
You think the right isn't completely captured? Have you looked into the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church? Do you know the history of the Jesuits? Can we all agree the Vatican is extremely powerful and corrupt?
Erika Kirk went to a Jesuit college and proudly said so. Her parents are government agents. She ran a sketchy "orphanage" in Romania. Can we do the fucking math?
Those are some very uncomfortable but important truths. I'm saying that as someone who thinks Candace Owens is 100% sincere and determined to find out what really happened to her dear friend. Yet, I agree with everything you said. I already know you're aware enough to know where I'm coming from (maybe even more than I am).
But why is Erika Kirk a no-go zone for Candace? Candace's viewers keep asking her to look at Erika and Candace refuses. Candace will just say some niceties about how sweet Erika is and move on. Meanwhile Erika is the biggest red flag about the whole operation and sends you into Jesuit territory, child trafficking and so on.
Can't have that.
I think at this point it's strategic. I think Candace more than anything wants to find out what really happened and going after Erika could create distractions. I think she hinted at Erika on one of her latest videos saying the whole TPUSA response hasn't made any sense.
I really think Candace is sincere on everything she covers and is right about the vast majority of it. Having said that her husband has advanced degrees from one of the oldest and most prestigious Jesuit universities in the world. The possibility of what I'm suggesting is a long game level of determined evil that I think even some GAW anons aren't wanting to acknowledge.
Even Q said multiple times "follow the wives"
"Maybe all (((these))) WIVES are there own high priestess cult…that where we’ll see the symbolism…the "slip ups" Q
Follow the WIVES. These people are stupid. Q
Then you have Candace and Charlie throwing signs https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E74q7eMXEAY4IUW?format=jpg&name=900x900
I question what happened but haven't commented on it as I still think it's too soon for me to form an educated guess. Speaking for myself only, in that respect.
Me, too Angel... I'm still riding the wave of emotion to be rational
I think that sums up where I am too. I want to apply non emotional critical thinking without bias as best I can.
It's kind of maddening and it creats cognitive dissonance.
Oh wait Erika's speech was 17 minutes?
I heard that part real loud lol.
This whole thing is kind of fake to me. Way too many questions.
I said this weeks ago right after the funeral!
Yes, well. She lost me at the coffin. Beyond creepy.
What was the explanation for the plastic looking hands? I've not heard. Have you?
When my grandfather died, I was forced to kiss him goodbye. And although I have seen many people laid out for viewing, I will never touch another corpse. Grandpa was cold, his skin hard, like a stiff plastic. No wrinkles and makeup.
Per a mortician- the plastic look to the hands is typical. While the mortician wasn't enthusiastic about the skill level of the make up job, the waxy / plastic look was well within the range of how a corpse would look.
Agree.
Yeah, the videos of that gave off performative vibes for me. I'm reserving judgement for now, but it does raise some questions in my mind.
Wrong opinions. There are strong women and weak women. The opinions are coming from a weak woman. The women in my family were and are not weak. Erika is a strong woman. She actually had to fall back on her acting skills to soften her strength. And it was was a kind of required prepared statement. Most of it was probably not written by her.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but I'm certainly not going to downvote your comment. I did ask for thoughts after all.
The culture now by the left is to have men cry and women to fall apart. That is not the conservative culture.
I applaud your level denial and the size of the blinders you have on. I'm guessing this is the very first video you've seen on how bullshit the entire "assassination" was?
I'm guessing you also bought the text messages the FBI released, hook, line and sinker?
Nope. I think there was a second shooter. And Charlie’s right hand went for his right neck like a reaction to the bullet impact, but didn’t even get there. Like he was switched off. Lots of strange stuff besides that. So much that I took a step back. I am waiting for the dust to settle a bit and more pieces of the puzzle to emerge.
Meh, I'm a very strong woman and still came off as fake. Not just Erik's demeanor, but the entire thing.
Originally, she was harsh toward Charlie's killer ("You have no idea what you have unleashed") then became soft at the memorial service ("I forgive you" while dabbing her eyes). Both felt staged. Also, the pyrotechnics at the memorial service when she was announced ("Please welcome to the stage..."). Very odd... but then, none of this has made any sense. The whole ordeal feels like a script better left unwritten.
The pyrotechnics bothered me too for some reason. Very distracting and overly theatrical.
IMHO Erika is phenomenally suited / trained for the type of public speaking she has been doing.
The drama, the whispering, etc. is very effective. Perhaps she rehearsed her speeches. I rehearsed all of my important briefings and speeches, including a eulogy for one of my troopers who was killed in an auto accident. In things like that, one must get the tone right -- despite the stress and anxiety inherent in giving that kind of a speech, the speaker must . . . perform. Yes, perform, after rehearsals, follow the prepared script, rather than break down into a blubbering mass of protoplasm on the floor.
That is responsibility, that is control, that is discipline, to execute the eulogy for the deceased, in respect of the deceased, to get the tribute expressed. Which is more important than the speaker's uncontrolled emotions . . .
So yes, she is an "actress" and very effective, following a prepared and rehearsed script. That does NOT mean she did not mean every single word! She just took it upon herself to deliver that message as best as possible.
She probably had a coach, unless she is a very well trained speaker.
Or, we are watching a movie . . .
Thinking along the same lines. Why do people think she would be perfectly composed and behave normally in that situation - speaking to the entire world about her husband's death only days after she witnessed it happen.
If the speech seems rehearsed it's because she rehearsed it. How else could a human being possibly deliver a speech under those conditions?
YES! She HAD to rehearse it! She could not have done otherwise.
And to your point, she has made a career of public speaking. In such an emotional situation it seems natural that a person would lean hard on their methods, to the point of seeming a bit detached.
I feel the same. It is the most important speech of her entire life and she must represent her small family well to a world wide audience of millions and millions of people - and someone is surprised that she had a speech coach or practiced the speech before delivering it. This isn't a eulogy to a few dozen family and friends - it's a professional speech in support of a political movement. She was also burdened with how to prevent Charlie's followers from going against his will and killing people, possibly triggering a civil war which our foreign enemies have been trying to foment for years. She did an amazing job.
YES she did an amazing job!
Erika is a strong woman. Strong women are not blubbers, at least in public. She had to fall back on her acting to soften her speech. Otherwise, the left would be screaming heartless.
How bout her parents being connected to Raytheon. Down the rabbit hole.
Oh please. Move on.
No actual anon would discount the research in this video and the inconsistencies it points out.
there's some fake anons on GAW, real shills and Johnny come lately
Wait for it you'll see them stumble in here. "hurgurburger, wchhhhat's this?! Someone isn't buying muyyyy approved official narrative? IVE INVESTED MY WHOLE SOUL INTO THAT NARRATIVE! Now TAKE a downdoot and IF IM FEELING BRAVE, MAYYYBE a snarky little one-liner in the comments! HMPH
edit- lol told ya
Is that an order?
Just a suggestion.
Why?
Because their goal is to get you to stop asking questions, buy the approved narrative, and move on accordingly.
Veiled within that simple one-liner are the following:
edit- hahahaha downdoot the truth like a good little MINION (;
I felt that she was faking her grief at the memorial. Fake tears, careful blotting of eyes and nose. No disturbance in makeup, no red eyes, no tear tracks down her cheeks. Either Charlie is not dead, or she is glad because she will make a lot of money.
The left is the most callous and hateful people on the planet. The woman loses her husband and father of her young children and all they can do is criticize her. If you ever wondered who Satan has on his side, look to the left.
She indeed did an amazing job. ....
This has nothing to do with strong vs weak. But nature vs scripting. Perhaps that is what TV recordings do: Take the soul of of things. I did not get any sense of nature from this.
I ain't buying and I do not need to. I can simply put this aside and reference it later. There are too many peculiar details that cloud a clear explanation of her behavior.
She gets 6-8 months from me. I discount whatever she does that looks weird for those first 6-8 months. I watched my mom after my dad died, I know how I was after my husband died. Neither of us saw them murdered in front of us. It's a different grief losing your spouse. Until you lose yours, you don't have much room to say shit. Does that mean I'm not watching? Will I be surprised if there's more? Nope. Just means I've seen widows do really strange shit after just losing their spouse.
Trying to prove that a grieving widow is "faking it", is pretty insensitive and rude IMHO.
What a convenient way to shut down logical thinking; did you watch the video?
I watched enough of the video to know that it's BS. Moreover I know people who know the grieving widow. From their perspective it's even more BS.
Source: trust me bro
We see you
I don't care if you trust me or not. I know the truth and I assume that you are an agent of the enemy, trying to sow disinformation.
I also invite users to checkout this user's history of shilling for Israel before they delete it
Attacking a grieving widow.
Classy.
Go to her channel and all you see is Charie Kirk. I see a grifter. As she attacks a widow for ... gestures. She uses .... gestures.
Nadia is a grifter and parasite on Charlie Kirks memory.
+1
Haven't watched this yet but my gut reaction to Erika Kirk was that she is a devious liar and a narcissist. That doesn't necessarily make her an enemy agent, though.
Who cares what this dipshit has to say. She’s a Hollyweird actress. By definition she is only smart when she is reading a script someone else wrote.
There's a lot of acting with water Baptist churches.
Weren't they holding a "revival" ie getting people saved because our God is not a sovereign God according them.
They don't believe in predestination yet the bible from beginning to end is all about predestination and God's will.
Hasn't anyone seen John Hagee or Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker or Jessica Hahn at work before? Wait strike that last one.
They're acting. Watch the wives.
@ 12:25 mark 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
CAN ANY "ANON" TELL ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT SHIT AINT FAKE N GAY
That hits like the biggest Vanna White moment of the whole speech.
Gave me the creeps since way before the tradgedy
IS my husband.
Whoever this commenter is, if she is an actress, she is not a skilled one and is probably rehearsed.
She is inauthentic. No thespian on the planet (including high school 1 performance actors) would EVER misuse the phrase "willing suspension of disbelief". This is what the audience does, not the actor or speaker.
Her use is like someone claiming to be from the Royal Billy Shakesphere company.
Case in point:
Hair and makeup: Of course Mrs. Kirk is in full hair and makeup. Not just any makeup either, that is done for the camera rather than indoor daytime light makeup. Just like a beauty queen that has done TV work would have. Oh, my she IS a Beauty queen with media experience. It would be out of character for her to appear any other way.
Gestures: Dramatic training and public speaking would make these a natural. By contrast watch youTube or Instagram of women speaking about cosmetics or trying to sell something. Gestures there are very exaggerated and distracting. Mrs. Kirk was doing 2 things simultaneously: speaking to an audience at a distance and to the camera, which is an intimate distance. She hit a happy medium.
This is a farce, and I call shenanigans.
Let's say 4:20 mark.
The Turning point logo is a clock. It is moving from 6 to 12.
Check your 6? (Camera was removed from Charlies 6)
Nukes are always what 15 seconds to midnight?
Trained actress??
🤣🤣🤣
Barry is a great show... short only 4 seasons.
Features a hitman that has no emotional state, discovers acting while on the job.
The best thing about Barry is the bad acting that leads into amazing acting shots. The show really exposes the base narcism of life in LA. It does this in an entertain way and the show gets dumber as you explore the characters their motivations.