Someone asked me the other day, “What’s your take on Candace Owens?”
If you don’t know who she is, she’s a right wing political commentator and podcaster. She has a large audience similar to personalities like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelley, Glenn Beck, Charlie Kirk, etc.
I don’t personally follow Candace. I’m not an expert on her content. I learned about her during one of Donald Trump’s campaigns since she was a loud voice in the MAGA party as it was growing.
So why am I choosing to write a piece about her on The Dandelion Report?
Because she is spreading lies and delusion, and they are going viral.
Please understand I have no loyalties to any particular personality or political party. I am loyal to Jesus alone, and the truth.
If you or someone you know is falling down the Candace Owens rabbit hole, send them to this post and maybe it’ll make a difference.
Here’s the 2 minute summary.
Over the years, Candace has drifted away from her typical party lines, and specifically started spreading conspiracies and misinformation surrounding Jewish people.
Owens doesn’t just critique policy—she peddles tropes that echo centuries-old Jew-hatred.
Most recently, when Charlie Kirk was assassinated on September 10th, she jumped into the moment and started sharing things about him that he could no longer defend or clarify. She also was not able to produce evidence. But that didn’t stop her from strongly implying that Charlie was changing his stance on Israel, and this spread like wildfire across social media.
You might have noticed on TikTok and Threads, people on the liberal left started saying things like “I think Candace might be onto something.”
We truly entered the twilight zone where liberals were agreeing with right wing podcaster Candace Owens as she sharpened her anti-Zionist viewpoint and dragged Charlie in with her.
Eventually her lies were debunked with a 7 page letter1 that Charlie himself wrote to PM Netanyahu back in the spring, but by then it was too late for many. They saw Candace and “Charlie” now squarely in the anti-Jew crowd.
I am not a doctor or a mental health professional and this is just conjecture, but if you watch any of her YouTube videos, you’ll see many red flags that suggest something might be quite distorted and fragmented in her thinking.
My hypothesis is this: Candace is battling some sort of acute mental health crisis that is amplified by grief, paranoia, ChatGPT research that is aiding delusion, and addicted to the attention that all this conjecture is bringing her.
I am going to show you something I did with one of her most popular YouTube videos. I took the transcript, and ran it through ChatGPT and asked it to analyze her words. Feel free to do the same with your LLM of choice!
Here are just a few of the things it said:
This YouTube transcript tells you much more about her current psychology (loss, paranoia, power struggle, branding herself as a crusader) than it does about what actually happened to Charlie Kirk.
Her timeline is deliberately chaotic (outfit changes, Discord, gun barrel logistics) — which she frames as “proof” of a cover-up. But chaos also serves to overwhelm the listener and lower critical thinking (what she herself warns “the government” does).
Heavy use of absolutes: “over my dead body,” “nothing can stop me,” “I know exactly who you are.” This is ego inflation under stress — she’s positioning herself as the lone gatekeeper of truth.
She insists she “has no evidence” Israel was involved but also repeats insinuations that they silenced Charlie and blackmailed him. This is a double message: “I’m not saying it was them… but it was them.”
She calls for “sunlight” and “release all texts” yet withholds the actual evidence she claims to possess (“our sources are solid,” “messages are circulating”). This is a classic narrative control move — imply proof exists, never show it, demand others prove their innocence.
She uses guilt by association and loaded language (“re-education camp,” “laced threat,” “blackmailed”) to imply nefarious motives without providing verifiable evidence.
Repeatedly invoking “they” (“they wanted us to know his voice was problematic”) keeps the threat ambiguous, which makes it more powerful emotionally because the listener fills in the blanks.
This is just the feedback from one episode. If I add in a few more, it only gets more intense. I added her most recent transcript into the chat, and here are a few comments:
This second clip is like the first one turned up to 11. It’s a case study in how a person under stress, trying to “run” an investigation while livestreaming it, can create a labyrinthine conspiracy narrative that both enthralls and destabilizes an audience.
The entire monologue is built on implication, not evidence. She repeatedly names people, describes odd coincidences, then suggests nefarious motives (“Phil Lyman’s energy was weird… maybe he knew more”).
She plants these as questions (“Why did he stop by Nick’s house?”) but strings them together so the audience hears them as proof of conspiracy.
She never shows primary evidence that Charlie Kirk reversed his position or was “executed,” by Israel but she states it as a given (“There are no ifs, ands, or buts. Israel knew that. Turning Point knew that.”). This is a power move: define the narrative first, dare others to deny it.
This is less about solving a murder and more about Candace Owens reinventing herself as the lone crusader for “Charlie’s truth.” It’s a mix of grief, brand-building, and conspiracy theater — wrapped in moral outrage and merch links.
Julie’s Take
I have reason to believe that AI is amplifying some of this because there’s no way she’s not using ChatGPT or another LLM for research, show notes, outlines, ideas, etc. These are pattern matching masters and can find and draw connections between all kinds of extraneous data.
It’s called Hyper Associative Linking.
This is what happens in your good ol’ fashioned run of the mill conspiracy theories.
You take a bunch of data, find the related patterns and links, and you get this:
The issue is that AI is speeding all this up. It’s designed to spot patterns, even if the signals or connections are weak. When we rely just on our human brain, we can’t make the connections quite as fast.
In one of the transcripts, ChatGPT said this:
The Austrian software developer, the gothic prom in Provo, the new hospital CEO, FBI firings, bee products, goth kids, Tim Ballard… This is a “data deluge” tactic. Throw so many names, dates, and oddities at the viewer that critical thinking shuts down. People stop asking “Is this evidence?” and start feeling “This is too weird not to be true.”
Normally I wouldn’t write about stuff like this because what does this have to do with Jesus, our walk with God, or faith?
Because I’ve seen strong Christians and Jewish allies beginning to turn on Jewish people due to her lies.
The Jewish people have a key role to play in the current and future Biblical story, and hopping on the anti-jewish conspiracy train with Candace will lead you to dark places.
If you are a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish Messiah (who we eagerly await for His return), watch carefully what antisemitic spirits you let lure you away.
I encourage you to take her YouTube transcripts (they are right on YouTube), copy them into your own LLM and ask it to evaluate them based on logic, sound reasoning, and a Biblical worldview. Don’t listen to them and get swept up. Use critical thinking to look at the patterns in her show, which are obvious if you do a little research.
I’ll show you my reasoning and Biblical analysis done by my own ChatGPT account here as I sign off.
xx
Logical/Reasoning Audit by ChatGPT
Core pattern: accusation by implication, not by evidence. The spine of her argument is built on insinuation + anomaly hunting.
Begging the question / circular start: She repeatedly states as fact that Charlie was “publicly executed,” then uses that assumed conclusion to justify the rest of the narrative. That’s not argued; it’s presupposed.
Anomaly hunting (Texas sharpshooter): outfit changes, stairwell photos, a new hospital CEO, FBI personnel shifts, an Austrian engineer, a “goth prom,” bees, sponsors… She treats any oddity as probative. Lots of dots ≠ a picture.
Confirmation bias: details that “fit” are spotlighted; mismatches are waved off as part of the cover-up.
Guilt by association / category errors: “Jewish donors,” “they,” “goth kids,” “agents of Israel.” Vague collectives stand in for specific, verifiable people/actions. That’s imprecise and dangerous reasoning.
Appeal to ignorance: “I’m not saying Israel did it… but why lie?” Lack of evidence is used as suggestive evidence. (No.)
Moving goalposts / self-sealing logic: Others must publish everything immediately; if they don’t, it proves they’re hiding something. Any denial = “You’ve outed yourself.” Unfalsifiable claims are not claims; they’re rhetoric.
Poisoning the well / ad hominem: “fake and gay,” “snakes,” insinuations about motives and morality. That primes the audience to distrust rebuttals before hearing them.
Inconsistencies she criticizes in others appear in her own story: corrects names/relationships mid-stream, toggles between “I don’t know” and “I know for a fact,” says “release receipts” while withholding her own.
Monetization through crisis: hard pivots into ad reads and merch inside accusatory segments. It’s a show, not an investigation. That doesn’t prove falsity, but it does incentivize escalation and cliffhangers over careful verification.
Net: this is a theatrical investigation—high on heat, low on standards of proof.
Sound Reasoning: What would make this persuasive?
A truth-seeking standard (journalistic or forensic) would require:
Primary evidence (full, unredacted documents, metadata, videos from original sources).
Chain of custody & context (how evidence was obtained, by whom, and when).
Corroboration (two or three independent witnesses/sources saying the same thing).
Falsifiability (name what discovery would disconfirm your thesis).
Clear lines between fact, inference, and opinion (she blends them constantly).
She doesn’t meet these. She runs on association → insinuation → moral certainty.
Biblical Worldview Audit by ChatGPT
Scripture insists on truth, evidence, restraint, and impartiality. Her approach violates multiple guardrails:
Two or three witnesses; test all things: Deut 19:15; Matt 18:16; 1 Tim 5:19; Prov 18:17. She often substitutes “sources say” and vibes for witnesses & cross-examination.
Do not bear false witness / slander: Ex 20:16; Prov 10:18; 20:19; 1 Pet 2:1. Public accusations against named people/groups without evidence flirts with this line.
Slow to speak, slow to anger: James 1:19–20. She frames anger as righteous fuel; James says human anger doesn’t produce God’s righteousness.
The tongue’s danger: James 3:5–10. Weaponized words, threats, and innuendo create wildfire, not light.
Impartiality: Lev 19:15; James 2:1. Casting “Jewish donors” as a monolith is partiality; Scripture forbids it.
Avoid foolish controversies & quarrels: 2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9. Manufacturing endless “they” and cliffhangers incentivizes strife.
“Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy”: Isaiah 8:12–13. Direct hit. Fearful rumor-mills are not our anchor; the Lord is.
Wisdom from above: “pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason…” (James 3:17–18). Her posture is the opposite: heated, escalating, closed-loop.
Love rejoices with the truth: 1 Cor 13:6. Truth requires evidence and fairness, not just passion.
Christians absolutely may seek justice (Isa 1:17) and expose evil (Eph 5:11). But biblically, that means careful facts, witnesses, and humility—not speculative montage plus public shaming.
Christians can pursue truth without joining rumor-mills (Isa 8:12–13; James 1:19). Love rejoices with the truth (1 Cor 13:6), which means evidence, witnesses, and humility. If you’ve felt the pull of these videos, take a breath, test everything (1 Thess 5:21), and keep your heart free of partiality (James 2:1).
Receipts Appendix
Owens claims Charlie Kirk was “publicly executed.”
Where: Multiple episodes, repeated as fact without evidence. Example: “Charlie Kirk, my friend, is dead. And…he was publicly executed.” (start ~0:19 of Ep 244 transcript).
Reality: No public record or official statement confirms “execution.” This is framing, not evidence.
Owens says Charlie was changing his stance on Israel, pressured by Jewish donors.
Where: “Charlie’s perspective on Israel was not starting to shift. It had shifted entirely.” (~33:45, Ep 245 transcript).
Counter Evidence: On May 2, 2025, Kirk sent a 7-page letter to PM Netanyahu affirming his “deep love for Israel” and commitment to Judeo-Christian alliances.
Primary Source: Newsweek publishes Kirk’s full letter.
Owens alleges billionaire Bill Ackman staged a coercive “intervention” in the Hamptons and blackmailed Kirk.
Where: Ep 244/245 transcripts; she describes “threats were made” at a Hamptons meeting.
Counter Evidence: Ackman publicly denied the claim and called it “completely false.”
Source: New York Post, Sept 16, 2025.
Ackman publishes text messages with Kirk to refute Owens’ narrative.
Where: After Owens’ allegations circulated.
Evidence: Screenshots of WhatsApp messages show cordial, supportive exchanges between Ackman and Kirk.
Source: New York Post, Sept 17, 2025.
Owens frames vague anomalies as evidence of cover-up.
Examples: Outfit changes (11:49 shooter video), hospital CEO turnover, FBI Utah firings, Austrian software engineer, Provo goth prom.
Where: Ep 244 & 245 transcripts.
Source: HonestScribe transcripts.
Analysis: These are anomaly hunts—lots of disconnected details strung together to imply conspiracy. No causal proof offered.
Owens demands others release full receipts while withholding her own.
Where: “If you’re going to hold up the letter, release it in its entirety… Release your messages, Bill. I’ll release mine.” (~23:20, Ep 244 transcript).
Source: HonestScribe.
Contradiction: She repeatedly says she has text messages and “solid sources,” but does not produce them.
Tone markers: absolutes + threats.
Examples: “Over my dead body, which I’m sure can be arranged.” (~32:17, Ep 244). “There will be nothing that can stop me.” (~32:00, Ep 244).
Source: HonestScribe transcripts.
Analysis: These are rhetorical flourishes, not factual evidence—common in conspiracy mobilization.
I appreciate you writing about this. I haven’t watched but a few minutes of her recent videos but have seen A LOT of talk about her and the conspiracy theories. Thanks for doing the research and sharing it with us.