Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 1250 | Did Israel Kill Charlie Kirk? Investigation vs. Innuendo

Starting point is 00:00:00 Lots of claims are being made about Charlie Kirk's murder, including that Israel was somehow involved and that the government has the wrong guy. We are going to explore those claims today, as well as discuss how Christians should discern what is true and what is not. And surprise, surprise, I've got a hot take about Taylor Swift at the end of this episode. If you love Relatable, please leave us a five-star review. Wherever you listen, wherever you watch, make sure you are subscribed on YouTube, Spotify, wherever you listen. Listen, this episode is brought to you by our good friends at Constitution Wealth, Christian investors, are often shocked to learn that their portfolios include companies supporting causes that go against their faith. That's why I trust Constitution Wealth. They screen investment so your money isn't propping up agendas that conflict with scripture. Go to Constitutionwealth.com slash Alley for a free consultation.

Starting point is 00:00:50 That's constitutionwealth.com slash Alley. Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Monday. Hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far that you had a wonderful weekend. guess what week it is. It is a very special week in Relatable World. It is the week of Share the Arrows. Share the Arrows is this Saturday, October 11th, y'all. I am so excited. I know I've been talking about it for a long time, but we've been planning on it longer than we've been talking about it. And I am just so prayerful, so expectant, so humbled and grateful going

Starting point is 00:01:34 into this week right now we have about 6,500 women from six different countries and 48 states all arriving in Dallas, Texas to hear biblical teaching, to worship together, to be challenged, to be encouraged. I sent a text out to all of the speakers this week, and I said, look, we want every woman to walk out of there with zero fear of man, with a clear understanding of how to apply the word of God into the sphere of life that they occupy right now in this moment, how to take risks for the gospel that will look different than the risks I take, different than the risks that Charlie Kirk took. And yet, we are all called to be bold for the truth. And I want you to feel just completely strengthened and equipped and emboldened after you leave share the arrows. We still do

Starting point is 00:02:23 have tickets left. So if you haven't signed up yet and you're ready to go, like you want to be reminded that you are not alone, that there are thousands of other people on the same mission as you. Then go to share the arrows.com. I'll give you my code. It's Allie 20. And when you go to Ticketmaster, right there, you'll see a little button that says unlock. Type in Allie 20 right there. And then you'll get 20% off your tickets.

Starting point is 00:02:49 Related bros out there. Make it so that your wife can go if she wants to go. Make sure that she knows that the kids are going to be taken care of, that their other responsibilities are going to be taken care of, that it's not a hassle, that she doesn't have to worry about burdening you or the grandparents or anyone else, that it's totally fine, that this is a day for her to go and to be taught and to be refreshed and rejuvenated biblically. It's really important for her to be able to do that. It's important for your family. So whatever you can do to make sure that she knows that everything is taking

Starting point is 00:03:20 care of financially and all of that, do that for her. I really think if she wants to go, she will appreciate that so much. This year's shared, The Aeros is brought to you by good ranchers and amazing sponsors. So go to share the arrows.com, use that code Alley 20. And those of you who are already signed up, I cannot wait to see you on Saturday. And those of you who can't make it this year, please make sure to just pray for it. Pray against the schemes of Satan. Pray for safety, of course.

Starting point is 00:03:50 Pray that God would be glorified most of all. Pray for each of our speakers. Pray for everyone traveling. and just pray for us. Pray that God would be with us and again that he would just be honored and glorified. We've got our share of the arrows award at the end of it that I'm so excited about. There's just so much. I could go on and on. We'll talk more about it next week after it actually happens. All right. Let's get into this much awaited topic. And it's tough. It's tough to talk about all of this for so many different reasons when it comes to Charlie Kirk's assassination. This just

Starting point is 00:04:25 happened. It's very fresh. And it's a human tragedy. It's a personal tragedy to many of us. And as much as we feel it's a personal tragedy, it is a thousand times infinitely deeper of a wound for Erica, for their kids, for the many people who worked with Charlie on a daily basis. Just the void that has been left in their lives is huge. But in a way, it is affected so many people that never even met him. I talk to people every day, every week that still haven't been able to process Charlie's death with someone that they know. And I realize sometimes I'm the first person that they meet that actually knew Charlie. And so the emotions are just still so high. So in the midst of that, we are also talking about what actually happened to Charlie Kirk. And there

Starting point is 00:05:16 are many theories surrounding it. And some of them, I would call conspiracy theories. Some of it is legitimate investigation. Some of it is healthy question asking. And I will talk about how I think as Christians we distinguish between all of those things. And I do think it's okay to seek the truth about an investigation about a crime like this, a tragedy like this at the same time that you're mourning a person. But I do think we have to be careful how we do it. And so we've spent so much time doing everything we can to honor Charlie and to in our very, you know, small way compared to him carry that torch. But I do want to get into some fact versus fiction and just some questions I have about the theory circulating about who was actually involved in Charlie's murder. There are so many

Starting point is 00:06:06 claims being made. I do not have time to go through all of the claims today. I don't even have time to go through the claims that we are going through. Like I don't have time to hit every single point on those and debunk every point. So I'm going to do the best that I possibly can to go through two claims. And claim one is that Israel was somehow involved in Charlie's death. And claim two is that the Tyler Robinson evidence has been manufactured. And I don't have all the answers. You don't have all of the answers on all of it. But I think there are some really important questions that we need to ask that actually get us closer to the truth. Okay. Let's start with claim one that Israel is involved and that I'm going to go through the subclaims that I've seen. So under this category,

Starting point is 00:06:52 so subclaim one is that Charlie was frustrated about Israel's handling of the Palestinian conflict. I rate this seems to be true. I do think that this subclaim one under the claim that Israel is involved in this murder, I do think this subclaim seems to be true. Charlie went on Patrick David's podcast shortly after October 7th, 2023, and Charlie asked some questions about how this attack could have happened if Israel is really as secure and intelligent as we know they are. And then he also made a comment about Israel potentially committing an ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Here's not one. Bibi and the Israeli hard right government has a mandate, I've got to be careful the way I say this, they're going to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza. I mean, that's, and I don't use that term lightly, okay?

Starting point is 00:07:50 They're talking about basically removing 2.5 million people from there, okay? Okay, so this is not exactly the unconditionally positive portrayal of Israel that you see from some conservative. He had some what people would perceive as harsh words for the Israeli government at the time. Even though Charlie has a history of being extremely pro-Israel, of visiting Israel, he has partnered with Prager University for a long time. And really, no one ever questioned which side Charlie Kirk was on when it came to the Israel-Palestinian conflict or even the Judaism-Islam conflict. He has been a very outspoken critic of Islamic extremism for a very long time. And yet he had some critical words.

Starting point is 00:08:41 Then there's subclaim two under this category. Charlie was feeling pressure from pro-Israel activists and potentially pro-Israel donors. He made some comments that made people believe this on August 6, 2025 on Megan Kelly's show. Here's thought too. The behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away, Not like we're going to be pro Hamas, not like we're going to, but we're like, honestly, the way you are treating me is so repulsive. I have text messages, Megan, calling me an anti-Semite. I am learning biblical Hebrew and writing a book on the Shabbat.

Starting point is 00:09:17 I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath. I visit Israel and fight for it. There's another article out in the Times of Israel today. I could read it on air. I was just reading before I got on. Charlie, what are you doing? Like, why are you? What am I doing?

Starting point is 00:09:30 I'm sorry. Like, let's just take a step back here. Like, I'm an American citizen. So he goes on to say he's an American citizen. He's going to put the priorities of America first. And where he sees Israel's interests and America's interest contradicting, like he is going to be on the side of America. And he was, I believe, getting more and more vocal about that over time. We've got subclaim three. One of the donors, some people are claiming, was Bill Ackon. who was allegedly very angry at Charlie softening in support of Israel. And the accusation goes, he basically blackmailed him or threatened him to change his position. Ackman made an ex post on September 15th responding to these accusations.

Starting point is 00:10:18 It was a very long response. But he said, for the record, at no time have I ever threatened Charlie Kirk, turning point, or anyone associated with him. I've never blackmailed anyone, let alone Charlie. I've never offered Charlie or Turning Point any money. in an attempt to influence Charlie's opinion on anything. In fact, my interaction with Charlie Kirk have been extremely cordial, albeit limited, regretfully. So as I was very impressed by him and his work, and I will sadly never see him again.

Starting point is 00:10:41 So this accusation is referencing a summit or a meeting that actually did occur. I know that it occurred. A lot of people have said that it occurred at the Hamptons with some conservative influencers. I was not there. I was not invited or a part of that at all. But I know people who were there. and Bill Ackman really was there. Charlie Kirk really was there. And I'm sure there were maybe conversations about Israel because I know Charlie was interested in hosting debates among these conservative commentators on Israel and the Palestinian conflict and how that is being, how that is being handled. Ackman connected with Charlie via DM back in May, leading to a Zoom call on June 11th where Kirk expressed concerns about young conservatives waning support for Israel.

Starting point is 00:11:27 then Ackman posted his private WhatsApp text between him and Kirk to demonstrate their friendly interaction. It looks like Bill Ackman said, how are you? Charlie said, I'm doing great, really enjoyed our time together last week. So this is later. This is actually referencing the Hampton Summit that happened in August. And then Charlie said, thank you again for doing that, speaking about hosting that summit. And then Bill Ackman said it was great, great to get to know you better. do dinner sometime with the ladies. Charlie said that would be awesome. Thank you. I will.

Starting point is 00:12:02 Et cetera. Okay, so they're talking about getting together at a certain point. And then Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon B, who was there in the Hamptons. He was also accused alongside of Ackman of pressuring Charlie in an intervention to get him to change his stance on Israel. And then Seth Dillon on X in a statement said, I did not organize or participate in any intervention with Charlie. He said that he had no coercion, no threats that he didn't pressure him in any way and that he didn't notice any kind of anger going on here. Charlie's producer, Andrew Colvette. You were probably already familiar with Andrew, but if you watched my co-hosting of Charlie's show, then you saw him there, who is kind of taking the lead right now on Charlie's podcast.

Starting point is 00:12:57 He issued a response after consulting Turning Point staff who attended this August 4th through 5th retreat in the Hamptons. Andrew said, I have been asked about the Bill Ackman event more than a few times now. So I asked our staff who were traveling with Charlie at that time to find out what's true. His team was with him 100% of the time when he wasn't in his hotel room. Here's what they told me, quote, Bill never yelled at Charlie, never pressed him on, BB, never gave him a list of Charlie's offenses against Israel. There was concern raised about having Tucker at Student Action Summit and Charlie's reply was, honestly, people telling me not to have Tucker makes me want to have Tucker and I'm going to lock him in

Starting point is 00:13:39 for Am Fest too. All right. So those are the claims that are being made. Now, whether or not you want to believe those claims, maybe you don't believe Bill Ackman, maybe you don't believe Andrew Colvitt, maybe you don't believe Seth Dillon and that is your prerogative to decide who you want to believe. but I am telling you the response to the accusation that the pressure on Charlie reached some kind of fever pitch in the Hamptons and that somehow this points to Israel being a part of Charlie's assassination. All right, we've got another subclaim on this category, but let me go ahead and pause, tell you about our first sponsor for the day. It's WeHeart Nutrition. They'll be there at Share the Arrows, which I am so pumped about. They're an incredible sponsor and just an incredible company.

Starting point is 00:14:25 I'd be using WeHeart Nutrition no matter what because I love their product so much. I use their multivitamin. I use their iron supplement, their omega-3s. I use their magnesium. I use it all because I love it so much. And it's really helped my hair, skin and nails. It's helped my immune system. I just had a very clean bill of health from my doctor after a very thorough blood panel.

Starting point is 00:14:49 All of my nutrient levels are really good. and I honestly credit that to WeHeart Nutrition because all of their ingredients in each of their supplements is in the most bioavailable form. So your body will actually absorb it. Unfortunately, a lot of vitamins these days they put it in the cheapest form and your body can't even absorb that. So what's the point in taking it? You don't have to worry about that with WeHeart Nutrition. Plus they donate a percentage of every sale to pregnancy centers across the country. They are the real deal.

Starting point is 00:15:19 Go to Weheartnutrition.com. Use code Allie. You'll get 20% off your order. you do. That's weheartnutrition.com code alley. Subclaim 4. Benjamin Netanyahu lied about Charlie's letter. On September 11th, Benjamin Netanyahu read excerpts of a letter he had received from Charlie Kirk in support of Israel and an appearance on Fox News's Faulkner Focus. So here's Bibi Netanyahu, Sot 3.

Starting point is 00:15:48 One of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel and forming alliances to defend Judeo Christian civilization. A few weeks before the tragedy yesterday, I called him and I spoke to him and I said, please come to Israel. I invited him to Israel. And sadly, that visit will not take place. But he was a defender of our common Judeo-Christian civilization. He was unbelievably excited to walk at the footsteps of Jesus here.

Starting point is 00:16:19 Okay. So after he said that, Candice Owens said that B.B. Netanyahu is lying about that letter. And, you know, since the letter has come out, which we're going to read a little bit, a lot of people have said that, you know, Candice was lying, saying that B.B. Netanyahu was lying. And I'm not sure. I don't think that's totally true that she was lying about that. I think that it is true that there were parts of that letter that B.B. Netanyahu didn't read. But at the same time, I don't know that him not reading the critical parts of Charlie's letter was a malicious. omission. It probably just wasn't appropriate on Fox News right after Charlie had died to read all of Charlie's criticism of Israel's messaging. So yes, it is true. What Candace said that the entirety of the letter was not just praising Israel unconditionally. But Bibi Netanyahu is also right that that Charlie wrote that and that Charlie was a supporter of Israel in general and the Judeo-Christian Alliance in general. So both are telling the truth there. There is more to this

Starting point is 00:17:32 letter, though, that I do think is important to know. And we can't go through the whole thing because it was a very long letter. It was originally released in its fullness by the New York Post. And Charlie is basically expressing deep affection for Israel in the beginning as a Christian advocate. He says it's been one of his greatest joys, exactly what we heard Bibi Netanyahu say here. And then he goes on to say as Muhammadism spreads into Western societies, it's critical that Jews and Christians stay united in the effort to contain a rollback radical Islam and Sharia law. I regret to report that anti-Israel and anti-Semitic trends are at record levels on social media. These negative sentiments then flow downstream into college campuses and even seep into the conservative MAGA community. But then

Starting point is 00:18:22 he goes on to tell BB Netanyahu, this is mostly y'all's fault. He's like, y'all's messaging efforts aren't good. Y'all need a new PR strategy and what you are doing to communicate the virtue of y'all's fight against Tamas. It shouldn't rely on American influencers. And it seemed to me that Charlie was frustrated, that he was always having to try to figure out a way to defend everything Israel was doing and that Israel wasn't doing their part in helping American media and American conservatives like get the truth out there. And so this was a very nuanced, a very layered letter to Bebina and Yahoo that I think showed genuinely who Charlie was and how he really felt. I don't think there's any question that he was very pro-Israel, that he really believed in

Starting point is 00:19:19 a Judeo-Christian alliance and that he cared about the Holy Land and that he wanted Israel to succeed against Hamas and that he saw Islamism as a huge threat to Western civilization and that he didn't buy into conspiracy theories about Judaism, taking over different parts of power in the United States and undermining America. He didn't believe in that from what I can see. I don't have any secret conversations or secret information about Charlie to tell you one way or the other, but it seems obvious to me from what he said publicly and what he said here to Benjamin, to BB Nat and Yahoo. So a lot of people are also saying I've seen out there that, oh, this wasn't, this letter wasn't really from Charlie, which I don't really understand. I see that from

Starting point is 00:20:08 the right, it seems. Some people saying this was written by AI. This is chat GPT. This is not Charlie. This is not how Charlie sounds. Why would Charlie send this letter? And then I see people on the left saying, oh, he was so arrogant. Why would he send a letter like that? Well, you both are wrong. Number one, this sounds exactly like Charlie. This sounds like how he writes. This sounds like how he wrote.

Starting point is 00:20:31 This sounds like how he talked. This seems true to the things that he was saying publicly at the time. And so, okay, number two, I saw some people say, this is chat GPT and Israel put it out there. Why would Israel put out a letter like this? This makes them look horrible. why would Israel want to publish a letter that makes them look so bad? Because he had so much criticism for Israel.

Starting point is 00:20:55 So that doesn't make any sense. And then on the other side, people saying, well, this was so arrogant. It must not be real because Charlie would never think he had this much influence. He had this much influence. He had this much influence. Like Israel relies on American conservatives to be their publicists, basically, in a lot of ways in the West. And Charlie was one of the leading pro-Israel voices and very influential in the in the Trump administration. So yes, he had that much influence on BB Nat and Yahoo.

Starting point is 00:21:32 And so I think that the letter is completely real. I don't think that we have any reason to doubt its validity. And then we also have subclaim five, which honestly we're not even going to get totally into because I'm still trying to figure out like what is the claim here. The claim is that turning point is losing money. And I think that the assumption is that it had something to do with Israel. And maybe we'll have to come back and we'll have to really like get into what the truth is about this and the allegation that they were losing money mysteriously and that Charlie wanted to lead some kind of like doge effort to make sure that they weren't losing money in some kind of, you know, nefarious way. And then Tyler Boyer,

Starting point is 00:22:20 who is the COO of Turning Point Action, he said that they're not losing money, that it's not true. This is a standard audit. And so, yeah, there's a lot of, there's a lot of back and forth there, and I don't have any insider information to offer you on that one. But all of these points are supposed to come together and we're supposed to at least be squinting our eyes. at Israel and saying, okay, if all of these things are true or at least partially true, somewhat true, then maybe Israel is involved. And here are some things that I think we need to think about before taking this leap and some questions that I think we need to ask, not only when it comes to this claim, but really when it comes to any claim. But before we get into that, let me go ahead and

Starting point is 00:23:10 pause. Tell you about our next sponsor. It's Carly Jean Los Angeles. I'm wearing my CGLA jeans right now because I almost always am. I love CGLA's denim. Fits so well, really in any stage of life. It has really good give without losing its shape during the day. And it's just really hard to find that, especially for the really fair price that CGLA jeans are. I love all of my CGLA clothes.

Starting point is 00:23:34 They're also going to be at Share the Arrow's. All of our Share the Arrow's merch was made by CGLA. So you know it's going to be top notch and so comfortable. I'm so excited for you all to be able to be able to. to get yours. But all of their clothes are amazing. They've got new drops like every few months. Their latest one, so cute just in time for fall weather, especially if you live in warm climate like I do and you want those fall clothes that aren't super heavy, you need to go to Carlyjean, Los Angeles.com. When you use code AllieB, you get 20% off your order. That's Carly Jean,

Starting point is 00:24:09 Los Angeles.com code AllieB. Okay. Here's how conspiracy. theories work, okay? Because conspiracy theories are different than critical thinking and question asking. An innuendo is different than investigation. And implication is different than investigation. And I'm not even pointing fingers right now. I've seen a lot of different Instagram posts, a lot of different ex post from a lot of different people, some that are asking good questions and some that are just spinning up suspicion. And again, those two, things aren't the same. So this is what you need to look for when it comes to any claim. If it's a claim that I make, if it's a claim that someone else makes, especially when someone is creating a

Starting point is 00:24:59 series out of multiple claims. Okay. So this is how conspiracy theories work. One, you exploit distrust or gaps of information. So in this case, we don't trust the government. That's true. We have good reason not to trust the government. There have been things that the government has said that are kind of sketchy, like text exchange, um, that the government, claimed was between the shooter and the partner. A lot of people said that it seemed fake, although I think that there are some questions about that. To exploit pre-existing suspicions or resentment. So in this case, the people claiming that Israel was involved in this, like, already didn't like Israel. So that, to me, is a little suspicious. Like, it would be a lot more credible

Starting point is 00:25:44 to me if the people pursuing this theory didn't already blame Israel for, other things. Like if they were blaming Germany for this, I'd be like, oh, that's interesting, because I don't see any, like, vested interest in accusing this particular country. Or if people who, like, Navir criticized Israel in the past, are like, yeah, I really think Israel is a part of this, then that might be a little bit more intriguing. But it just seems a little bit too on the nose and coincidental that Israel would be involved in a crime. And it's being found out by people who are already super critical of Israel. Another characteristic is giving partial truths.

Starting point is 00:26:23 So, like, there are some truths that are in this claim, as we already validated. Netanyahu didn't say everything was in that letter. Charlie did exchange words with Bill Ackman. Charlie was concerned with Israel's direction. So all of these things are true. But then there's also this aspect, giving full truths, but making full truths, but making it seem like they're tied together with a secret sauce of special knowledge without ever actually providing the receipts and the evidence to prove those connections. So this happened, this

Starting point is 00:26:58 exists, and these two things are connected because we should be asking how? Why? So we should be asking what do those two things have in common? How are those two things connected? What do those two things have to do with each other and what do they have to do with Charlie's murder? I need to be told specifically. I need to be told directly. I need to be told explicitly because if we're making claims about who is involved in Charlie's murder, like I need the tangible evidence of those connections. It's not enough to just tell me that some things happened and some things exist. also as I said innuendo is not investigation so if someone knows something if they have insider information then they need to release it to the public like I don't want a drip campaign I don't

Starting point is 00:27:52 want multiple you know like a thread on this like I just I want to know like if we all are seeking the truth and I want to know the truth too then I want to know up front I don't want like these oh well you know, this person said this, but I know for a fact that that's not true. Tell me how you know for a fact. I want to know how do you know for a fact and like what is the truth. Gosh, I really want to know what is the truth. So here are my specific questions when it comes to this Israel claim. Why would Israel, whose existence is largely dependent upon the support of the U.S., take out one of the most vocal supporters of Israel and Judaism? Why would they target a confidant of one of the most pro-Israel presidents of all time. Would Israel really risk the further alienation of the American right,

Starting point is 00:28:39 literally some of its only lasting supporters in the world, by taking out one of our biggest heroes? And would they do it in a way that internet sleuths can figure out? Because either Israel is very stupid, or they're extremely cunning and conniving, but I don't understand how they can be both. And I've gone back and forth with some people in my DMs about this. One person said, oh, well, look at this. Look at how much Israel lobbies in our government. Like, look at how much they're trying to influence the media. Look at how many times they're, you know, meeting with commentators, how they were talking to Charlie Kirk and trying to influence what he thinks. Okay, but even if that's true and even if you have a problem with that, what does that have to do

Starting point is 00:29:19 with this? Because do you know how many countries and how many corporations do that? Like, do you know how many of these entities are trying to influence American media, China, Russia, are two of the main ones, Iran, another one? And, you know, Charlie was a big critic of Islam, much bigger critic of Islam than he was of Israel. Charlie was a big critic of China. Charlie was a confidant of the president who has been very harsh on Russia. Tell me why there aren't a bunch of theories about those countries' involvement in Charlie's murder. Like again, ask why it goes back to Israel. Charlie was critical of a lot of things and a lot of people and a lot of countries and a lot of different ideologies. Like why is it his criticism of one part of what a particular government is doing

Starting point is 00:30:24 in the Middle East, why does that have to be the thing that probably led to his murder? It just doesn't make sense to me. It's not adding up to me. Claim two. The government is manufacturing the evidence against the current suspect. There's someone named Rob O'Neill. He is a man who killed Osama bin Laden. Thank you, Lord, for that.

Starting point is 00:30:46 But he believes that the lone gunman theory is inaccurate. He believes that this guy had help. Subclaim one. So O'Neill initially calls the 170-yard shot with a 30-odd-6 rifle, easy for a sniper or hunter, but later questions why an untrained 22-year-old would take a neck shot, saying, you don't take a neck shot because you missed. He implies the precision hitting Kirk's neck is suspicious for an amateur, suggesting possible training or an alternative explanation.

Starting point is 00:31:20 He says that the shot distance is within range for a hunting rifle with a scope, his sniper experience. Rob O'Neill suggests. Next shots are accidental, not intentional for non-professionals. Okay, so he just doesn't think it adds up there. But here's our fact check. It is possible. I wouldn't even go so far as to say plausible. I think that's even like a little bit too much. It's possible, but not conclusive. A 30 odd six rifle with a modern scope as the one that was recovered can accurately hit a target at about 142 yards while challenging for an untrained shooter. The suspect did have experience. We know that he trained with his father growing up. There are a lot of pictures with guns. In fact, Wall Street Journal has this picture of the suspect

Starting point is 00:32:14 with a very large gun. And so it is totally possible. It's also possible that he was aiming for the head and that he jerked the gun and that he actually missed, that he didn't actually mean to hit him in the neck. And if he had practiced this, if he had done a lot of target practicing, which it does seem like that was something that was very much a part of his upbringing, it seems that it's totally possible. And so he just doesn't think it seems like Robbenil just doesn't think that this guy could have done it on his own and that this was something that was maybe a little bit more professional.

Starting point is 00:32:51 Subclaim two, people are saying that the wound appearance of Charlie and the shirt movement just doesn't fit with this guy being on a roof 175 yards away. So O'Neill disputes that the official narrative that the visible wound was an entry wound. He disputes that claiming it looked like an exit wound based on his own combat experience. He said an entry wound doesn't look like that. He says video footage showing the neck wound and shirt movement just don't line up. He disputes the assertion that Kirk wasn't wearing body armor. He said bullets don't deflect that way. But we do know from Andrew Colvitt that he was not wearing body armor that day.

Starting point is 00:33:36 And Andrew Colvitt said on September 20th in an ex post, he said that he wanted to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound. He said, I just spoke with a surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital. He said the bullet absolutely should have gone through, which is very normal for a high-powered, high-velocity round. I've seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, et cetera, but it didn't go through. Charlie's body stopped it. It was an absolute miracle that someone else didn't get killed. His bone was so healthy and the density was so impressive that he's like the man of steel.

Starting point is 00:34:16 It should have gone through and through. It likely would have killed those standing behind him too. In the end, the coroner did find the bullet just beneath the skin. So even in death, Charlie managed to save the lives of those around him. Remarkable miraculous. Now, some people just aren't buying that. But I don't have a reason not to buy that. I don't have any reason to doubt.

Starting point is 00:34:39 Of course, Andrew Colvitt, I totally believe him. But then also what he's saying that the coroner said and that the surgeon said. And of course, I believe it's possible for. God to do anything. And he's saying it's miraculous and miraculous means that it goes beyond reason or even like the laws of physics. And so I have no reason to believe that this is untrue and that there was some other kind of wound there. And also like we've talked to people who were actually there like Frank Turrick. He saw the wound. He saw what happened. He was there. And I've talked to him and many of you have seen what he has said publicly and describing exactly what happened.

Starting point is 00:35:24 And I trust him. I trust Frank Turrick, who has described the wound and what was going on in the car and how they were trying to stop the bleeding and all of that. And there's a reason why Charlie died so immediately. There's another claim here about the security failures that people just aren't buying. And we'll get into that in a second. Let me go ahead and tell you about my next sponsor. and that is good ranchers. We love good ranchers in our home. It's so good. We rely on it almost every night. Our kids love the chicken. We just bake the plain chicken breast in the oven. So good, really healthy.

Starting point is 00:36:02 Love that it all comes from an American farmer ranch. I made some green beans over the weekend. We went to a little Sunday school party and I used my Good Ranchers. Applewood bacon and the green beans. And if you don't make your green beans with Good Ranchers bacon, what are you? you doing? It's so good. It's the best way to make vegetables with bacon. And Good Ranchers makes that really easy and really good. And all of their meat, including their baking, comes from an American farm or ranch. If you go to Good Ranchers.com and you use my code Alley, you'll get $40 off. And you'll get an extra pack of meat added to your subscription for life. It is such a good deal. They'll also be at Share the Arrows. Go to Good Ranchers.com. Use code Alley. Good Ranchers.com.com. com code alley.

Starting point is 00:36:50 Okay, so this is subclaim three. Security failures, rooftop oversight. O'Neill questioned why the rooftops weren't secured, especially after what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania with Trump. So here is our fact check on that. So Charlie's security team, as Turning Point has said over and over again, as I have experienced because I've spoken at so many Turning Point events over the years, They are top notch. I've been to a lot of events with different levels of security.

Starting point is 00:37:25 And I can tell you not every organization and not every event has the kind of security that the turning point does. Every time I was at a turning point event, I would have one or two security guards with me at all times from the moment I left my hotel room to on stage to walking around, no matter what, until I got into my car and I got on my way to the airport, I was covered by a security guard. Not every organization does that. They are like no nonsense guys. And again, I've seen all different levels and they were always my favorite because I just

Starting point is 00:38:05 knew that I was cared for. They weren't going to mess around and you could tell that they were always assessing every threat. And man, that was times 100 for Charlie, which was their principal, the guy that they loved. the guy that they knew if they were doing that for me, a random person, I'm telling you, they were on top of security for Charlie. Now, what happened in this case, according to Tyler Boyer, who again is the head of turning point action, has been with turning point from the beginning, is that it was not a failure of turning point security who did everything that they possibly could

Starting point is 00:38:37 to secure it. They had their own drone program. And actually, the city where this happened, had their own drone program. But unfortunately, the drone was the drone idea, I should say. The drone proposal was shot down by the campus, not literally shot down, but they said, no, you can't use drones. Tyler Boyer said on X, we have our own drone program shot down by campus police. Orham police has a state-of-the-art program. The question I have is why the campus police didn't use it.

Starting point is 00:39:10 According to ABC News, Utah Valley University's outdoor courtyard where Kirk showed up on September 10th to debate. Students was surrounded by several tall buildings, leaving Kirk vulnerable. That was made all the more potent because campus police didn't fly a drone to monitor rooftops or coordinate with local law enforcement to secure the event. It deployed only six officers from a force that was already small for a campus at size. There were no bag checks or metal detectors. So obviously, like there are a lot of things, a lot of steps that could have been taken. They could have said no, no outside events after Butler, Pennsylvania. They could have said, no, you're not allowing anyone into this area until they go through

Starting point is 00:39:49 metal detector. The drone probably could have saved Charlie Kirk's life. And so there was a lot going on here, but Charlie had been in the Lionsden in a lot of different places. He had been in much more progressive and dangerous places than this. So I don't know. Maybe some, you know, security, the local police, campus police, whatever. Maybe they just didn't think that it was. that it was that big of a threat. They said that they didn't see any credible threats. Obviously, they were wrong about that. And that is part of why we are where we are today.

Starting point is 00:40:25 I don't find this to be suspicious. Human beings are fallible. They make mistakes. They do wrong things. Maybe there were nefarious motives. I don't know behind the police forces there, who didn't allow, or the campus police that didn't allow them to have the drone program.

Starting point is 00:40:41 I don't know, but I don't think this is all part of some secret grand scheme that means that the suspect isn't really the suspect. Again, I'm just not seeing the connection there. And then we also have this claim that there's been a sketchy handling of the crime scene. There's this video going around where it looks like the college UVU is tearing up the crime scene. So at 6. Okay, so you can see that they're kind of like painting it. They look like they're maybe laying in cotton. Now, it looks like they're just painting it. And so some people are saying, oh, my goodness, they're messing up this crime scene.

Starting point is 00:41:20 They're trying to cover something up. But the truth is, you can see in this picture right here, we've got this full screen. The scene of the crime was roped off while the authorities were investigating it. This picture is from September 11th that you're seeing the day after the murder. And so they probably got everything that they needed. And they probably told the campus, hey, you can't do anything. You can't reconstruct anything here until we do what we need to do. And so I have no reason to believe that they were covering up any evidence or that there was anything nefarious going on there.

Starting point is 00:41:58 I mean, at this point, it's been a while since Charlie was murdered. And I assume that federal authorities have gotten everything that they needed. because remember the gun and where the guy was actually on the roof, that was not where they are reconstructing. They, I'm sure, already got everything they needed from where Charlie was actually shot. And then there's another claim here, and this is our last claim for this segment, that there was overly convenient evidence left by the suspect. There was a note left under the suspect's keyboard photographed by his romantic part,

Starting point is 00:42:36 partner saying, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it. The text exchanged with his partner post-shooting where Robinson allegedly confessed said he had enough of Kirk's hatred and that he had been planning the attack over a week. He also used some words like vehicle, which people claimed, okay, no, no, you know, 20-year-old talks like this. This is just too weird. This is clearly the feds creating. these texts, I don't know, in order to make you think that this is the suspect. And I read the text and I did think they were super awkward. I thought they were too on the nose. I didn't think that it sounded like a 20-something would text something like this and that the like trans person on the other side

Starting point is 00:43:26 was so innocent and so like, oh my goodness, what do you? I thought it was, I did think it was weird. But then I saw a video going around and actually I'll play it. it. And it's of this suspect calling a car a vehicle. And then I thought, you know what? He kind of talks like this. Here it is. And as I get into the intersection, there's a vehicle in the lane. And then it struck me, these two people may very well be on the autism spectrum. And they may talk awkwardly. Like, they may be socially awkward. They may say things that you would think like a typical 20-something wouldn't say, they may actually talk like that. But even if it is the feds, like even if these texts are fake, I still think that this is the guy. I think that we have

Starting point is 00:44:26 sufficient evidence, sufficient photographs, sufficient evidence of his discord and Reddit history to say, yeah, this guy, he didn't like Charlie Kirk. And he was a radical and he had been radicalized and probably living with the so-called trans person was radicalizing. He had gun training. I don't see any reason to believe that this is not the person. He does look like the pictures that were released of the suspect that was, that came down off the roof. I don't understand when people are claiming that he doesn't look like that. He does look like that.

Starting point is 00:45:07 So until I see true evidence to the contrary, I just, sorry, I don't believe that it was anyone else. And I don't believe that the government is like covering up for Israel. Again, I just haven't seen evidence of that. All right, we got some questions to ask. We got some things to remember when we're looking at anything or assessing any theory. Let me tell you about her next sponsor first. It's pre-born. Let me tell you this really amazing story.

Starting point is 00:45:35 Victoria was a young mom and she was scared. She was confused. She was desperate when she walked into her local plan parenthood. She was handed an abortion pill. But almost immediately after taking the pill, she knew that she had made a mistake. She regretted it. She didn't want to do that. The weight of her guilt was so crushing.

Starting point is 00:45:54 She even thought of just ending her own life. She had just ended the life of her child. and she didn't want to live anymore. But by God's grace, instead of just staying alone and desperate, she reached out for help. And that search led her to a pre-born network clinic, where Truth broke through. There, the loving staff gave her immediate care,

Starting point is 00:46:15 gave her the abortion reversal pill, helped save not only her baby's life, but her own. So we have to remember that in a culture that is drowning in deceit, that truth can save lives, that true clarity, that true courage, that love, that grace, that understanding, but a relentless commitment to life can actually save lives. And it can also share the gospel with people who desperately need their souls to be saved by Jesus too. You can be a part of this incredible work. This network of clinic that's offering the abortion reversal pill that's offering free sonogram,

Starting point is 00:46:52 so many free tools for pregnant moms in crisis. You can be a part of saving those lives. When you donate just $28 to Preborn, you cover the cost of a life-saving ultrasound. Maybe that's what you can donate today. Maybe you can donate it once a month. Maybe you can donate $2.80. Maybe you can donate $28,000. Whatever your most generous gift is, give that. Go to preborn.com slash Alley. Make your gift today. Preborn.com slash Alley. Here are some questions to ask. Whenever you're hearing anyone, myself included, make claims and make a case for you. for something. Okay, you've got to ask these questions. What are the motivations of this person? What are the motivations behind their narrative? Consider why someone is promoting this particular

Starting point is 00:47:40 line of thinking. Are they seeking truth? That's a good thing. Or do they have ulterior motives? Like trying to perpetuate continued resentment towards a person or towards an entity that they feel resentment toward. Or maybe for some people, it's attention or power, whatever it is. There's a lot of people. I especially see a lot of people making all kinds of posts on Instagram that clearly their theories can be poked through with just a little bit of critical thinking, but this has garnered a lot of engagement for them. So it's very difficult when something gets you a lot of engagement to stop on the basis of morality and ethics. It's very difficult. What evidence have they presented? This is the big one. This is the one that I want you to ask over and over again to

Starting point is 00:48:26 me and every single person that you follow or listen to. What evidence is, has this person presented? Look for concrete verifiable evidence. Are the claims backed up with data documents, firsthand accounts, or are they speculative? And not just for the claims they're presenting, but the connections between the claims that they're presenting. Are they just making a bunch of claims and then leaving it up to you to speculate and to bring all of those things together? See, that's the difference again in conspiracy theory and critical thinking. Do they cite credible sources. Evaluate whether the sources are reputable, transparent, authoritative. Are they vague? Are they constantly anonymous? Are they obviously biased? Is the narrative logically consistent?

Starting point is 00:49:10 Does the story hold together under scrutiny? Does it rely on contradictory claims or leaps of faith? So that's a good question. You've got to think really hard about these things. And I think one of the biggest problems that we have is outsourcing our critical thinking to podcasters and influencers. I don't want you to do that. I don't want you to do that with me. I don't want you to do that with anyone. In fact, as much as I love helping people and giving words to their arguments and belief, sometimes I'll get messages like, what should I think about this or what should I say to that? And I'm like, you should know. You should know. You should be able to ask questions. You should be able to think through what someone is saying and at least get to the point of being able to poke holes in

Starting point is 00:49:54 their statement. And typically it's about, you know, some claim that I'm a professing liberal Christian is making that is so obviously untrue. And I'll get a question from like a strong believer, well, gosh, this is compelling. What do you think about this? And honestly, I just want to say, you know, what do you think about it? You think before you ask me, and this is a good rule of thumb, before you ask me, before you ask anyone, you think about it first. And you try to dig through it before you outsource your thinking to someone else. Does the narrative align with observable reality? So test the claims against known facts.

Starting point is 00:50:31 Do they require dismissing large amounts of evidence or common sense to be believable? Like, do you have to suspend what you know to be true in order to believe this person's connections that they're presenting to you? What is the fruit of the narrative that they are presenting? Does believing or spreading this theory foster fear, paranoia, chaos, or does it promote better understanding a better grasp of the truth? evaluate its spiritual and practical outcomes. And I also want to talk to you about Gnosticism. I think it's really important to know the context of these kinds of narratives and context around true conspiracies. Gnosticism emphasizes secret elite knowledge that supposedly reveals like hidden truths about the world that could only be accessed in a special way.

Starting point is 00:51:27 So according to Ligonier, Gnosticism was a prominent movement that grew up around the church in the second century. It also has a pre-Christian origin. It was a cocktail of Persian, Egyptian, Jewish, and Christian ideas with some Greek philosophy thrown in. The word nosis itself means knowing or having knowledge. Having knowledge is a significant part of Gnosticism. To say you are Gnostic is to say, I know something you don't. I'm in on the secret. I've been enlightened.

Starting point is 00:51:54 I'm, I've woken up. I'm spiritually on a higher level. And in order for you to access this special knowledge, you have to follow me. And you have to enter into the secret door. I mean, we see this in the new age. We see this in the self-help, self-love movement. We see this, I would say, in the hyper-crunchy world, we also see it. in the progressive world that you just have to be woke the way I'm woke.

Starting point is 00:52:18 And if you're woke, then I don't really have to tell you the evidence behind these connections because you just, you'll just know it because I know it. And I'm going to infuse my secret knowledge into you. That's Gnosticism. That is pagan cultishness. Okay. And I want to remind you of this passage from Isaiah. That's really important for all of us to remember.

Starting point is 00:52:42 because the truest thing that is always going on is God's eternal plan of redemption, which is always going off without a hitch. God is never confused. He's never thrown off. He's never wondering what's going on. Full justice and truth will be done and will be revealed in the fullness of time. Does that mean we shouldn't seek truth and justice here today? Of course we should.

Starting point is 00:53:06 I think that's part of the reason we're here on earth, but we have to do it in a way that is logical, that is reasonable and that goes more deeply into truth and evidence not away from it. Isaiah 812 through 13 do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy and do not fear what they fear nor be in dread but the Lord of hosts him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear. Let him be your dread. So we should not have the same paranoia and the same fear and the same anxiety that the world does because we know who is ultimately in charge.

Starting point is 00:53:39 We know where our hope comes from. So if you're going to seek truth and ask questions, seek truth and ask questions from that place. Trusting in the sovereignty of God, trusting in his goodness, not from a place of personal control. Don't exchange the God of Scripture for the God of self that leads to a very heavy burden of anxiety in all ways. All right. I've got a completely unrelated hard pill to swallow. And it's about our girl, Taylor Swift. In just one second.

Starting point is 00:54:08 let me go ahead and tell you about our last sponsor and then we'll do that last segment that's Patriot mobile they're America's only Christian conservative wireless provider so thankful for them they stand in the gap for all of the things that we believe in and you don't have to worry about them sending your hard earned dollars to leftween causes they're not doing that they're supporting the sanctity of life they're supporting our first and second amendment rights and so when you make the very easy switch to Patriot mobile you are voting with your dollar and that's really important and you don't have to compromise at all on service when you do that they've got a 100 percent U.S.-based customer service team that makes switching so easy. You can activate in minutes

Starting point is 00:54:45 from the comfort of your home, keep your number, keep your phone, or you can upgrade. They offer unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, internet backup, so much more. Go ahead, make the switch. Go to patriotmobile.com slash alley. That's patriotmobile.com slash alley. Okay, moms. Your daughters should not be listening to Taylor Swift. They should not be. She is not a role model. And it actually baffles me that there are Christian moms who will say, well, she's better than Chapel Room. Or she's better than bad bunny. Or she's better than, I don't know, Selena Gomez, whoever.

Starting point is 00:55:27 Y'all, the bar is in hell if that is our standard. The bar could not be lower if we are deciding on the righteousness of our kids' entertainment choices based on the most degenerate stuff out there. That is not how Christians should be thinking. We are to pursue what is excellent, what is good, what is praiseworthy. And Taylor Swift's music at this point is none of those things. Okay, we're excited that she's getting married. I'm excited that she's getting married. We're excited that she has found a man that she can commit to and love. Yay. We are excited that she is not celebrating being a homosexual like so many pop artists. today. Yay. Okay, we can acknowledge all of those things. We can say that maybe she's not as

Starting point is 00:56:17 depraved and disturbed as some of the pop artists out there. All right. We can acknowledge all of that while also acknowledging that she is not placing good, pure, praiseworthy and excellent thoughts in our minds and in the minds of our very impressionable daughters. See, it is different teenagers listening to Taylor Swift today than us listening to Taylor Swift when we were a teenager, when we were teenagers. Because Taylor Swift was a teenager when we were a teenager.

Starting point is 00:56:51 She was crying on her guitar. We were crying on our guitar. She was happy, confused, and lonely at the same time. We were happy, confused and lonely at the same time. She was 22. I was 20. Okay? So we were in the same life stage.

Starting point is 00:57:03 She was talking about this, you know, silly superficial stuff. She was talking about teenage romance. She was not talking about opening up her thighs to someone who is not a husband. Okay. And that is literally what she is singing about. There is zero reason for you to allow your daughter to be listening to or going to the concert of Taylor Swift. There is a verse that came to mind when I was seeing some of the people share about her lyrics.

Starting point is 00:57:30 Song of Thelman 2.7. Do not stir up or awaken love until it pleases. the NIV says do not arouse or awaken love until it's so desires. And I think it's so important to make sure to do everything that we can, to keep our daughters, to keep our kids on the right track spiritually, mentally and emotionally. Like I think about the mistake that I made when I was a teenager and reading smut. I mean, it wasn't nearly as bad as, you know, the stuff that you see today. It wasn't like explicit 50 shades of gray, but a lot of innuendo, a lot of.

Starting point is 00:58:06 lot of like hot and heavy implication about what was going on behind closed doors, that kind of twilight stuff I should not have been reading as a 16, 17 year old alone in my room because it creates in you a desire that cannot be fulfilled in a holy way. And purposely consuming content that creates in you, whether you're an adult, but especially as a teenager, that creates in you a desire, a longing that may be natural, but cannot be fulfilled in a way that is honoring to God is not good. And we as parents are called to steward our children. We can't control them.

Starting point is 00:58:46 And I'm not saying we put them in a bubble, but we also don't say, here, honey, this thing that is degenerate, and that is encouraging sexual impurity and immodesty and self-service and self-obsession and sexual promiscuity. Like, yeah, listen to this. Let's be entertained by the sins that Christ died for. that's not good Christianity. That's not good motherhood. That's my hard pill to swallow. We'll be back here on Wednesday talking about the comparison between George Floyd and Charlie Kirk. What really is

Starting point is 00:59:21 martyrdom? Yes, I will be responding to that Jackie Hill Perry clip that a lot of you guys have sent me in that has been circulating. But we'll have a lot more to talk about on Wednesday as well. So we'll see you guys back here then.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 1250 | Did Israel Kill Charlie Kirk? Investigation vs. Innuendo

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.