I totally agree, but something isn't right. I don't know why. I think that there is something that we don't know.
Save this and berate me when my gut turns out to be wrong. which I hope it is in this case. But I don't trust anything anymore, and that makes my opinion almost worthless. But I'm just being honest. Please have pity on a warn out anon. I'm only human and these fuckers don't seem to have any limits.
Nope. Sorry. She thrust herself onto us with full glam makeup, excessive expensive jewelry, i.e., 3 gold necklaces, 6 or 7 diamond encrusted thick gold rings, multiple stacked gold bracelets, big hair, long acrylic nails, false lashes and platform shoes. All to be paired with shooting fireworks, sequined jacket and pants (or alternatively black tight leather pants, or black lacey dresses), and an entrance of a super church Evangelical televangelist. Her previous gazes at heaven and whispers of 'Jesus!' and 'I love you Charlie baby' over and over in the days after his death were hard to watch. She basks, BASKS! in the limelight to the chagrin of most discerning patriots.
She gave a perfectly scripted 17-minute speech within 48 hrs. of his death that must have taken her weeks to write.
10 days later she gives a 28 minute speech that also had to have taken weeks (or a team) to write. She dabs at eyes that do not cry, nose that does not run and speaks with a clear voice that never cracks with emotion.
I have followed extensively her appearances, comments and behavior following Charlie's death. I knew nothing about her beforehand, but the old videos of her have resurfaced over and over. We see how she was constantly, overtly 'love-bombing' him on camera, making goo-goo eyes at him (when she knows they are filming), nuzzling his neck while he's trying to speak to someone (while being filmed of course) and looking adoringly as if in a trance at him in every 'candid' family photo. This is way beyond 'real and normal'.
I told my own husband that I thought she was a honeypot and a M-o-ssad MK-Ultra groomed asset right after Charlie's murder simply by watching her face and body language. Every time I watch her, I get the 'ick factor' in my bones. Everything feels 'off' about her. Since his death I feel that she was involved and complicit in his death. NOTHING about her behavior is normal, nor should we be normalizing it with the trope of 'everybody grieves differently'.
I have since watched dozens of the MANY podcasters who are investigating and evaluating old videos of her and him, videos from the day of his assassination, and all of the interviews with TPUSA members, etc.
The conclusion to my mind is that the official story is a coverup. She's involved. And this crazy entrance to the AmFest is gross and sickening. Dressing in sequins and coming out like the Headliner of a Las Vegas Act is so cringe. She is not a rock star. This glorifying of 'her' now, truly makes me sad. I think if Charlie is watching he would be shaking his head in disappointment.
I think if she continues doing public appearances-- she needs to have a style consultant. Someone who has more of a feel for the understated fashion of females in politics as opposed to the styles appropriate for beauty pagents. I don't hold this present "look" against her. She is drawing from her own experience and these venues are two different things in terms of tone. She just needs the proper advice.
I don't watch a lot of these things, so maybe it's common, but it seems to me our message is diluted a bit by this over-production and spectacle. Makes it seem like we don't think the message is enough.
Granted, we should try to make the delivery as professional, thoughtful and maybe even a little entertaining, as possible - but I think this takes several steps beyond that.
I'd contrast it to Jordan Peterson's public talks, where it was just him on a blank stage. No pomp and circumstance, yet he had sell-out crowds because of the content of what he was saying.
I think she should have stuck with a Freedom tshirt, Charlie's vibe was humble, hers is more Tammy Fay and I do hate saying that.
LEAVE THE GRIEVING WIDOW ALONE
I totally agree, but something isn't right. I don't know why. I think that there is something that we don't know.
Save this and berate me when my gut turns out to be wrong. which I hope it is in this case. But I don't trust anything anymore, and that makes my opinion almost worthless. But I'm just being honest. Please have pity on a warn out anon. I'm only human and these fuckers don't seem to have any limits.
Nope. Sorry. She thrust herself onto us with full glam makeup, excessive expensive jewelry, i.e., 3 gold necklaces, 6 or 7 diamond encrusted thick gold rings, multiple stacked gold bracelets, big hair, long acrylic nails, false lashes and platform shoes. All to be paired with shooting fireworks, sequined jacket and pants (or alternatively black tight leather pants, or black lacey dresses), and an entrance of a super church Evangelical televangelist. Her previous gazes at heaven and whispers of 'Jesus!' and 'I love you Charlie baby' over and over in the days after his death were hard to watch. She basks, BASKS! in the limelight to the chagrin of most discerning patriots.
She gave a perfectly scripted 17-minute speech within 48 hrs. of his death that must have taken her weeks to write.
10 days later she gives a 28 minute speech that also had to have taken weeks (or a team) to write. She dabs at eyes that do not cry, nose that does not run and speaks with a clear voice that never cracks with emotion.
I have followed extensively her appearances, comments and behavior following Charlie's death. I knew nothing about her beforehand, but the old videos of her have resurfaced over and over. We see how she was constantly, overtly 'love-bombing' him on camera, making goo-goo eyes at him (when she knows they are filming), nuzzling his neck while he's trying to speak to someone (while being filmed of course) and looking adoringly as if in a trance at him in every 'candid' family photo. This is way beyond 'real and normal'.
I told my own husband that I thought she was a honeypot and a M-o-ssad MK-Ultra groomed asset right after Charlie's murder simply by watching her face and body language. Every time I watch her, I get the 'ick factor' in my bones. Everything feels 'off' about her. Since his death I feel that she was involved and complicit in his death. NOTHING about her behavior is normal, nor should we be normalizing it with the trope of 'everybody grieves differently'.
I have since watched dozens of the MANY podcasters who are investigating and evaluating old videos of her and him, videos from the day of his assassination, and all of the interviews with TPUSA members, etc.
The conclusion to my mind is that the official story is a coverup. She's involved. And this crazy entrance to the AmFest is gross and sickening. Dressing in sequins and coming out like the Headliner of a Las Vegas Act is so cringe. She is not a rock star. This glorifying of 'her' now, truly makes me sad. I think if Charlie is watching he would be shaking his head in disappointment.
🤮
TBH I do not picture a grieving woman or mother of small children dressing like this.
Very bad look IMHO. Besides, aren't her 15 minutes of fame over by now?!?
EVERYBODY GRIEVES DIFFERENTLY.
She had every right to glitter and sparkle and hug men intimately ONCE her husband was assassinated
But only married men, right? That's OK, right? /sarc
All that glitters is not gold.
I think if she continues doing public appearances-- she needs to have a style consultant. Someone who has more of a feel for the understated fashion of females in politics as opposed to the styles appropriate for beauty pagents. I don't hold this present "look" against her. She is drawing from her own experience and these venues are two different things in terms of tone. She just needs the proper advice.
I don't watch a lot of these things, so maybe it's common, but it seems to me our message is diluted a bit by this over-production and spectacle. Makes it seem like we don't think the message is enough.
Granted, we should try to make the delivery as professional, thoughtful and maybe even a little entertaining, as possible - but I think this takes several steps beyond that.
I'd contrast it to Jordan Peterson's public talks, where it was just him on a blank stage. No pomp and circumstance, yet he had sell-out crowds because of the content of what he was saying.