OMG, I am watching the show. Meghan was introduced as a humanitarian and a philanthropist. She introduced herself as someone who is 'a relaxed cook' who grew up in California with lots of fresh produce, she ate farm to table fresh (so no TV Dinner latch key kids story today). She said her mum was a great cook (where was she Meg ) and she taught herself to cook.
Oh and yes, they do say to the contestants to make a meal 'fit for a Duchess' and Meghan smiles. All the bullshit she was upset about being referred to as Royalty 🙄🙄🙄
The world saw Queen Elizabeth II's drastic weight loss, sparking concern for Her Majesty. She was dying of bone cancer. Yet, Meghan Markle, a raving narcissist, used The Cut interview to threaten Prince Harry's 96-year-old grandmother, showing no compassion. She is not a humanitarian, she’s a fraud, a bully and a liar.
Let’s post about Prince George and watch Harry have another meltdown. Whenever the young royal appears in public, Harry seems to spiral and immediately launches a PR stunts. It’s very strange to be so jealous of your far more emotionally stable and intelligent 13-year-old nephew.
Just wow!!! Catherine looked incredible today! Old Hollywood movie style stunning! The lady behind her, to her left also looks gorgeous as well 😎
Cute pictures of Prince George and Princess Charlotte laughing over their hats!
How is it possible that Prince William and Prince Harry are full brothers?! 😭
William is out at Wimbledon looking fresh, composed, and ageing like a fine wine. Harry, on the other hand, looks like he’s been stress-tested for a decade straight.
Is this what the ‘Meghan Markle’ effect does to a man?! Harry’s unkempt and thinning hair, his wrinkles and unhealthy looking face makes him look far older than his real age.
Both brothers are supposed to have the same parents and same genes, but their faces undeniably display the effects of two completely different timelines - and two completely different wives! 😳
No, @AndrewKolvet—that would be you. The debilitating narcissism it took to believe that you could hijack Charlie’s legacy—his show, his organization, and pervert his vision. You lied about what he believed in, who his friends were, and what and who he feared in the last days of his life. You shamelessly sold replicas of the T-shirt that he bled out in with profits directed to the LLC that you own a stake in. Not “for Charlie”— but for you, Judas.
You displayed the tent he died under, and partnered with the very people he HATED all for money. You presented a grieving widow as an excuse but forgot to instruct her to actually grieve. You hoped the people wouldn’t notice.
You all thought you could pull it off. You had Kash Patel, the DOJ, the President, the White House Administration, Journalists, and the Vegas mafia on speed dial.
You naturally thought you guys were too big to fail but you forgot what made Charlie great and how he won. Charlie never thought he was above the people or his employees. He always debated and never relied on his Rolodex. You coronated Erika like it was her birthright and sneered at people for asking common sense questions. You forgot that it was Charlie’s ability to communicate and listen to people from different walks of life that made him unique.
In the process you crashed and burned the organization he built. But Charlie was always bigger than Turning Point USA. He has changed the world despite what you’ve done. Let TPUSA lay in the ashes of your deceit. The world knows he was betrayed.
The spirit of what Charlie built lives on with the people who are fighting for real justice.
Wake up @AndrewKolvet!
We need another manufactured lie from you to clear this up.
You texted me back at 12:40pm UTAH time and told me that you didn’t know anything other than that Charlie had been shot.
Can you tell us why Ben Shapiro was seemingly receiving updates before you? While Charlie was en route to the hospital?
Did I mention that Ben’s security team is current and former IDF? I know this because I used to work at the Daily Wire, Andrew.
Can you let us know who on Charlie’s security team was available to provide instant updates to an IDF security attaché and why Ben Shapiro was deemed significant enough for that information during the crucial minutes when they should have been focused on saving his life, collecting evidence, and/or pursuing his alleged killer(s).
Seems a weird time to take a phone call from Ben Shapiro’s IDF security team—no?
Wake up, JUDAS, we want answers.
When Ben provided the figurative 30 pieces of silver and publicly pledged to give you guys 1 million dollars a couple of days laters on Charlie’s set, how did you and @BlakeSNeff feel?
How does money like that feel, Andrew?
Did you let him look at the bloody mic he told the world he would pick up?
Inquiring minds who still have souls want to know.
It was you that booked Ben on Charlie’s show a couple of days before Charlie’s death. Charlie was upset with you about that.
Was that to seed the idea that Charlie and Ben were friends?
Do you have the stomach to try to tell the public that today?
Say it, bitch.
Say “Ben Shapiro was Charlie’s real friend and Candace wasn’t ”.
I want to hear you try it.
I never knew Kobe Bryant - not even his name - until his tragic death, along with his daughter and 7 others, all taken violently and before their time.
As a conservative, I knew Charlie Kirk; I followed and admired him; felt his passing profound sadness.
I recently watched Vanessa Bryant’s eulogy for Kobe and their daughter, Gigi. It was real emotion, hard to listen to, but at the same time, it was so touching it was heartwarming.
It was a message of lasting love, of deep unending loss, and a personal insight into who Kobe, and Gigi, really were.
That kind of insight leaves you feeling as though you’d really known someone, even if only for a moment, and feeling the loss in that moment when you realise they’re no longer there for you to admire, appreciate and really get to know.
By the time she’d finished, in so many words, she had thanked God for the time they’d had together, revealed heartfelt intimate details about who they really were, and told us that nothing will ever be the same again.
That’s the point of a eulogy. It’s to get to know the person we’ve just lost. Not the neighbour, or the shopkeeper up the road, not the basketball player or the Oscar winner nor the political activist, but the actual person.
I never knew Kobe, but by the end I felt as if I knew what kind of man he was, and to be honest it put a lump in my throat more than once. It was very powerful.
That’s instinctive, by the way - not learned or scripted. I’ve given eulogies for a best friend, my mum, dad and my granddad. It’s instinctive because on some level we all know that the struggle you once overcame together and now laugh about, or the silly voice someone used every morning to wake you up for school, or the fact they never once missed kissing your nan goodnight in fifty years, all tell us far more about a person than any figure ever could. It’s instinctive because as humans it’s a catharsis we all need, to begin healing, honouring and remembering.
After Erika’s eulogy for Charlie, I felt nothing but anger. She begins, in so many words, by telling us that Charlie’s death was a gift from God that Charlie himself had asked for; she shares anecdotes of how others comforted her; tells us how grateful Charlie was for her; and even takes a moment to voice resentment towards men in general, lecturing on how to live: “your wife is not your servant.”
The cheers from the mourners were as cheers from an evangelical movement. The whole eulogy played out like the kind of sermon you’d expect at a megachurch - complete with calls to action and, of course, for funding.
Please listen to it properly. It’s mostly about Erika, about what “Charlie thought of her.” Then it challenges, chastises and lectures.
By the time she’s finished, she’s thanked God for the situation she finds herself in, forgiven the man we’re told killed Charlie, and told us how great things will be going forward - now she’s in charge.
Erika’s eulogy for Charlie was scripted - clearly not by her - and as a result, it was not heartfelt, and failed to connect, with anyone.
Vanessa’s, by contrast, was clearly written - not scripted - by her. They were her words, and she felt and delivered them so powerfully that we all grieved with her - even someone like me who never even knew who he was - and thanked God for him having been the man he was.
One eulogy is a celebration of a life, of gratitude at having shared it, a reckoning with the unfairness of it, and a promise to honour him always.
The other is a celebration of loss, of her gratitude for having paid the price of “God’s love” with her husband’s life, of moving on, and of what comes next.
There’s nothing wrong with looking forward, but that’s not a eulogy. Maybe the kind ChatGPT might write given some prompts, but not the eulogy of someone who instinctively knows that what they’ve lost can never be replaced.
It’s true that everyone grieves differently. But it’s also true that some people do not, or cannot, grieve at all.
Ronaldinho: «Mi padre decía que era mejor aprender a dominar el balón descalzo, para tener sensibilidad en los pies. Prometí que dominaría como nadie. Pero, en realidad, él no tenía dinero para darme unas zapatillas.
Cuando gané el Balón de Oro, no lloré de alegría... lloré por no tener a mi padre.»