Category: Conservative Review
Allie Beth Stuckey responds to Candace Owens’ podcast call-out
Since the murder of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, conservative firebrand Candace Owens has been commenting on numerous conspiracy theories surrounding Kirk’s death. She has made it clear that she believes the FBI’s current narrative — that Kirk was allegedly killed by lone gunman and radical leftist Tyler Robinson — isn’t the truth.
Owens, a vocal Israel critic, speculates that Kirk’s assassination was a targeted political hit involving TPUSA insiders, military contractors, and various “Zionist” influences and that Robinson is merely the fall guy in a calculated scheme.
While some have cheered on Owens as a truth-seeker, many have criticized her as recklessly divisive and harmful to Kirk’s grieving friends and family, while she offers little evidence. These include BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey, who has defended TPUSA against Owens’ allegations.
Stuckey’s initial criticism avoided naming Owens and instead focused on debunking claims about TPUSA’s role — specifically that the last-minute booking of the Utah Valley University event points to internal foul play.
In an X thread from November 6, Stuckey shared her experience scheduling TPUSA events with Charlie.
In addition, she posted a series of Instagram stories (now expired) urging her audience not to “outsource critical thinking” to other people. Without naming Owens, Stuckey said, “If you are implicating a real person in a murder plot, you better be 100% sure that it is true and backed by hard evidence.”
Owens, on the November 11 episode of her podcast “Candace,” played these Instagram reels and addressed Allie directly: “It was Charlie’s real life, Allie. That was Charlie’s real life when you saw him sitting there and he got shot. … I feel like that’s the part you’re missing because you’re so worried about the surrounding cast of characters who have been literally caught lying.”
She went on to accuse Stuckey of not genuinely caring about justice for Charlie: “He’s not here any more. Maybe you’re not worried about him, but I am. I’m actually worried, and I want to know what happened to Charlie Kirk.”
On yesterday’s episode of “Relatable,” Allie responded to Candace directly. With grace, tact, and biblical clarity, she offered a measured rebuke rooted in Scripture.
“[It was] my friend too who was shot in the neck, whom you have seen me talk about and reference several times over the past few weeks and just, you know, what that mentorship meant to me,” says Stuckey, adding that it “makes [her] sad.”
“I’ve thought really hard, like how do I respond in a way that is actually edifying, that lifts you up and doesn’t just tear down and get down in the mud? … There’s a part of me that does just want to go tit for tat … but I just know that that will lead to a never-ending back-and-forth,” she adds.
Stuckey admits that she “can’t compete” with Owens’ claims to have “secret sources” in the government and in TPUSA, nor can she claim that Charlie visited her in a dream, as Owens purports.
“I don’t have any special insight at all. … If I were to reveal all of the texts to each other [Kirk and Allie] that we have over the years, you wouldn’t find anything juicy — no gossip, no hidden clues, no secret signals. So I just won’t go there,” she says.
“So I’m instead going to do three things: I am going to give us direction from Scripture on what godly truth-seeking looks like, and I’m going to analyze the weight of our words, and then I just want to share the arrows with a few of my friends.”
Biblical truth-seeking
“Christians are called to sift. We are called to discern. We are called to weigh what is being said — both how it’s being said and the content of what is being said — against objective truth, against logical truth, and most importantly against biblical truth,” says Stuckey.
She points to the Bereans in Acts 17 — Jewish believers who were praised as “more noble” because they eagerly received Paul’s teaching but examined the Scriptures daily to verify if his words were true — as the biblical model for truth-seeking. “They didn’t just listen to Paul and Silas. … They examined the word of God to see if what they were saying matched,” she says, urging listeners to do the same.
When filtering ideas through the lenses of objectivity and logic, Stuckey suggests asking questions such as, “Is there evidence?” “Who is the source?” “What is the other potential side of this argument?” “What are the other possible conclusions that one could draw?” And “Is someone being falsely accused?” It is critical, she argues, to gather as much evidence as possible before drawing conclusions.
“Investigation and truth-seeking are really important, but there is a difference between investigation and truth-seeking versus salacious, innuendo-driven drip campaign,” she warns.
‘Words matter’
Words, says Stuckey, don’t just have earthly implications; they also have eternal ones. She points to Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:36 — “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” — as well as Solomon’s in Proverbs 18:21: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.”
“Words are really important to Christianity. They’re really important to God. We read over and over again, whether it’s in these passages or the book of James, how much our tongue can do in creating real-life impact and how much our words matter,” she says, advising against “[stirring] up suspicion” and “[pointing] fingers.”
From the commandment in Exodus not to bear false witness against our neighbor to Ephesians’ edict to “let no corrupting talk” come from our mouths, the Bible is clear that our words, especially when aimed at other people, deeply matter to God.
Stuckey acknowledges that her response to Owens will inevitably result in “a fresh set of arrows” for her too, but she refuses to fan the flames of conspiracy theory while hard evidence is sparse.
“I think that we have to trust that those closest to Charlie — that Erika, that those in his life who loved him way more than we ever did, who knew him way better than we ever did — that they want truth more than anyone, that they want justice more than anyone, and that they are asking the right questions,” she says.
Despite Owens’ accusation, this stance is “not a lack of caring” for Charlie or truth, she says.
“It is trusting the Lord, but also trusting the people who knew Charlie and loved him.”
To hear Allie’s full response to Candace Owens, watch the episode above.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Trump Will Order DOJ To Investigate Epstein’s Links To Bill Clinton, Major Banks
‘Now that the Democrats are using the Epstein Hoax’
Michelle Obama Lashes Out At White People During Interview For New Book
‘Our hair comes out of our head naturally in a curly pattern’
’Trey didn’t have a car’: ‘Airplane!’ director David Zucker on humble origins of ‘South Park’ empire
The creators of “South Park” didn’t always know it would become a hit — let alone one of the longest-running shows in the history of television.
Just ask Hollywood veteran David Zucker, who hired Trey Parker and Matt Stone shortly before the duo — and the foul-mouthed kids they created — became household names.
‘They were also unsure of if “South Park” would ever work.’
Zucker — who directed seminal spoof comedy “Airplane!” along with his brother Jerry and the late Jim Abrahams — recalled that when he first met the University of Colorado grads in the mid-1990s, they were still very much struggling filmmakers.
Ride share
“They came to my office and I met with these guys, and Trey didn’t have a car,” Zucker said.
Despite their precarious finances, the duo already had a feature film under their belt — 1993’s “Cannibal! The Musical” — as well as animated short “The Spirit of Christmas,” which would soon land them a deal for “South Park.”
Impressed with their talents, Zucker hired Parker and Stone to do a video for Universal executives commemorating the studio’s recent purchase by Canadian beverage giant Seagram.
The duo turned in “Your Studio and You,” a side-splitting send-up of 1950s industrial videos crammed with cameos by the likes of Steven Spielberg, Sylvester Stallone, and Michael J. Fox.
Hedging their bets
Zucker remembered the young newcomers in 1997 when casting the leads for his longtime passion project, “BASEketball.” By then Parker and Stone had made a second film, “Orgazmo,” a comedy about a Mormon missionary (Parker) turned porn star turned superhero. With a $25 million budget and major studio backing, Zucker’s project represented a major step up.
And while the two were then deep in production on the show that would launch their careers, they assumed it would die a quick death once it aired. So they agreed to star in “BASEketball.”
“They were also unsure of if ‘South Park’ would ever work,” said Zucker. “This was a hedge against, you know, Trey having to get his car fixed.”
Upon premiering in August 1997, “South Park” was an instant hit, requiring Parker and Stone to shoot “BASEketball” while simultaneously maintaining their grueling TV schedule.
RELATED: ‘Naked Gun’ creator David Zucker offers ‘Crash’ course in comedy
Rookie year
While Zucker had already written a script for “BASEketball” — inspired by an actual sport he and some friends “invented on my driveway” during the 1980s — he relied on his Gen X collaborators to punch it up for the younger “South Park” fan base.
“They probably wrote about a third of it, and you know, a lot of that stuff, because I didn’t know what kind of language went on between … 20-somethings,” Zucker explained. Both the actors were in their late 20s at the time.
One of Parker and Stone’s most significant additions to the script was helping with the “psych-outs” — tasteless insults “baseketball” players hurl at an opponent in hopes of making him miss a shot.
All-star lineup
Such tactics were never used by the real-life players, whom Zucker described as “all these guys who later became, you know, heads of studios and heads of agencies” — a roster including director Peter Farrelly (“There’s Something About Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber”), former CAA head David “Doc” O’Connor, and former Fox Television Group chair Gary Newman.
RELATED: ‘South Park’ roasted Trump — and the White House is not happy
1998: “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone star in the movie “BASEketball.” Getty Images
Zucker noted that he is emphasizing the “psych-out” element in a new “BASEketball” pitch: a reality show featuring teams of comedians playing the sport while tearing each other down.
As for his old “BASEketball” buddies, Zucker said he recently visited their office to get a 10-minute preview of their new movie, “Whitney Springs,” a live-action comedy musical starring rapper Kendrick Lamar as a black man working as a slave re-enactor at a living history museum who discovers his white girlfriend’s ancestors “owned” his ancestors.
“They showed me 10 minutes of it, and it looks great,” said Zucker.
Unpopular Democrat Gov. Katie Hobbs In Serious Reelection Trouble, Poll Shows
Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs is in serious danger of becoming a one-term governor, according to a new poll. An Emerson College survey released Friday shows Hobbs polling in a statistical tie with two of the three Republican contenders running in Arizona’s 2026 gubernatorial race. In addition, Republican Rep. Andy Biggs, a former chair of […]
‘Temporary crumbs’: Out-of-touch Democrat gives stunning rebuke of Trump’s ‘No Tax on Tips’ policy
Democrats are once again taking aim at President Donald Trump’s policies, but this time they are aiming toward one of his most popular campaign promises.
Trump debuted his “No Tax on Tips” policy on the 2024 campaign trail, which quickly earned the support of the majority of Americans irrespective of their political affiliation. The policy later made its way into Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress passed along party lines in July.
‘Nevadans know who put more money back in their pockets, and it wasn’t the Democrat frauds.’
Although Trump’s landmark legislation was rebuked by Democrats, some singled out the No Tax on Tips provision as a positive policy. Despite the bipartisan support, other Democrats continue to reject even this popular policy.
One Democratic operative offered a particularly tone-deaf criticism, calling the policy mere “crumbs.”
RELATED: Eric Swalwell offers melodramatic response to Trump DOJ probe: ‘I refuse to live in fear’
Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
“D.C. Republicans are giving temporary crumbs to working families,” Lindsay Reilly, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said of the provision, according to Politico. “Meanwhile, millions of families are at risk of losing their health care, hundreds of hospitals could close, and countless Americans could lose their jobs — all to pay for permanent tax cuts for billionaires.”
Not all Democrats share Reilly’s sentiments. Some Democrats actually support the idea of minimizing taxes on tips or even getting rid of them altogether. Rep. Steven Horsford (D) of Nevada — a state where many workers depend on tips — went so far as to create his own version of the legislation to address tax on tips, saying that “the Republicans got their bill wrong from the beginning.”
Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Because some “out-of-touch” Democrats like Horsford have tried to reclaim the idea of eliminating tax on tips, the National Republican Congressional Committee argued that effort is an indicator of the policy’s popularity.
“Nevadans know who put more money back in their pockets, and it wasn’t the Democrat frauds who are trying to claim credit,” Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the NRCC, told Politico. “Out-of-touch Democrats Steven Horsford, Dina Titus, and Susie Lee can’t lie their way out of this one.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Why defunding Planned Parenthood is a distraction from the real fight
In the past three years since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, pro-life organizations have been searching for a new national priority. They appear to have found one in the form of permanently defunding Planned Parenthood.
This objective, of course, is far from an original idea. Any conservative voter will know all too well that Republicans have been promising it for decades.
We should end the abortion holocaust without exception or compromise.
This year saw the first time national Republicans actually did defund Planned Parenthood. But it was only for one year — a lackluster achievement given that Republicans control both Congress and the White House.
A coalition of pro-life groups such as Live Action, Students for Life, and National Right to Life has now set “a permanent taxpayer defund of all organizations that commit abortion” as their new national priority.
The intention, according to Live Action, is to make sure Planned Parenthood is “permanently defunded” by July 4 of next year.
Certainly, stopping the flow of taxpayer dollars to organizations like Planned Parenthood is a worthy action, and we hope it is successful. But setting that as a central priority of the anti-abortion agenda is underwhelming at best, and doing so will end up distracting from what should be the ultimate goal — passing laws to abolish abortion.
Defunding is not enough
We live in the midst of a holocaust. Beyond the more than 65 million pre-born babies murdered under Roe, abortion numbers have continued to increase over the past three years since it was overturned, now surpassing 1 million pre-born babies per year.
This trend even extends to red states with restrictions claiming to ban abortion.
The removal of taxpayer dollars from the abortion holocaust is not wrong. But it is far from an action that will move us toward a decisive end to the bloodshed. Moreover, setting the mere defunding of baby murder as a central priority diminishes the gravity of this atrocity.
The main problem with abortion is not that we are forced to help pay for it. The main problem is that people are murdering babies.
We should not merely defund specific facilitators of the abortion holocaust. We should end the abortion holocaust without exception or compromise. The best way to defund Planned Parenthood is to criminalize abortion as murder.
For every year we let something else overshadow that objective, we allow another million babies made in the image of God to be murdered.
False victory
As we have seen before, many leading pro-life groups have shown a pattern of overstating their wins. Some will undoubtedly do that if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Such inflated rhetoric misleads anti-abortion Christians and conservatives to think substantial victories have been won, decreasing their zeal to remain engaged and win the actual battle.
When leaders at Planned Parenthood Michigan closed four locations earlier this year, Students for Life insisted that “the death industry is collapsing under its own weight” and proclaimed that “fewer Planned Parenthoods” means there are now “fewer babies killed.”
RELATED: Planned Parenthood’s ugly truth finally has consequences
Olivier Douliery/Getty Images
But just a few months after that proclamation of victory, Planned Parenthood Michigan announced that it would expand virtual appointments to “seven days a week, including weekends, morning, and evening appointments.” The organization also reported “growing demand” for the virtual appointments, leading it to “expand the program even further.”
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America has also called the defunding of Planned Parenthood this year the “biggest national pro-life victory” since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The organization has repeatedly highlighted the closure of individual abortion clinics as evidence that “the lives of moms and babies are being protected.”
In its public statements about the move, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America insisted that Planned Parenthood closures are evidence that “life is winning.” The organization failed to include the context that abortion rates across the nation are still on the rise.
In other words, the closure of physical abortion clinics does not necessarily mean fewer babies murdered. But pro-life groups celebrating as if that were the case are sorrowfully leading anti-abortion people to think otherwise.
Exaggerated impact
Planned Parenthood facilitates about one-third of all abortions in America. But even if it lost access to taxpayer dollars, the same number of abortions in our nation would almost certainly continue.
If the federal government were to cut off all funds to Planned Parenthood, the organization would find money elsewhere — from blue-state legislatures, from private billionaire donors, and most of all from the men and women who themselves fund Planned Parenthood by paying to murder their own pre-born babies.
Also, taxpayer money does not cause the abortion holocaust in our nation, but it subsidizes an already existing marketplace that will continue even if Planned Parenthood disappears tomorrow.
In other words, as long as there is abortion demand, there will be some form of abortion supply. We must address both the supply and demand for abortions, or else the murder of pre-born babies will continue.
The real priority
By prioritizing a weak objective of defunding Planned Parenthood, pro-life groups might achieve exactly that goal, but they will not get more than that goal any time soon. In order even to substantially decrease abortion in America, let alone actually abolish abortion, a much more ambitious goal must be set.
That is why every anti-abortion leader and organization should support legislation enacting equal protection of the laws for pre-born babies, which would not only break the power of abortion providers, but truly abolish abortion itself.
Christian conservatives rightly affirm that pre-born babies are made in the image of God and should be protected from the moment of fertilization. By calling for equal protection bills at the state and federal levels, anti-abortion groups would be setting the expectation that the exact same laws protecting born people from murder should protect pre-born people as well.
The focus should remain on establishing equal protection. This is the only policy that would criminalize abortion as murder for all parties involved, obey God, and dramatically reduce the number of murders of pre-born babies in America.
If such an expectation is set, then state and federal lawmakers may still defund Planned Parenthood — probably even faster than they otherwise would have. But setting a lower expectation than equal protection, such as defunding Planned Parenthood, decreases the likelihood of strong anti-abortion policies advancing.
The pro-life organizations searching for a new priority after the overturn of Roe should not set their sights too low, and they most certainly should not exaggerate their victories.
If they truly desire to protect pre-born babies and move America toward the abolition of abortion, merely defunding Planned Parenthood will not suffice. They must remember that we are in a holocaust that has continued for far too long — and act with the appropriate urgency and priority.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump-Backed Senate Candidate Says Democrat Opponents Would Have Jacked Up Taxes
Former Republican Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers’ Senate campaign rolled out its first digital campaign ad Friday hammering his Democratic opponents for opposing tax breaks. The 60-second ad, first shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation, attacks the three Democratic Senate candidates for their opposition to dozens of tax benefits enacted in Republicans’ One Big Beautiful […]
1980s-inspired AI companion promises to watch and interrupt you: ‘You can see me? That’s so cool’
A tech entrepreneur is hoping casual AI users and businesses alike are looking for a new pal.
In this case, “PAL” is a floating term that can mean either a complimentary video companion or a replacement for a human customer service worker.
‘I love the print on your shirt; you’re looking sharp today.’
Tech company Tavus calls PALs “the first AI built to feel like real humans.”
Overall, Tavus’ messaging is seemingly directed toward both those seeking an artificial friend and those looking to streamline their workforce.
As a friend, the avatar will allegedly “reach out first” and contact the user by text or video call. It can allegedly anticipate “what matters” and step in “when you need them the most.”
In an X post, founder Hassaan Raza spoke about PALs being emotionally intelligent and capable of “understanding and perceiving.”
The AI bots are meant to “see, hear, reason,” and “look like us,” he wrote, further cementing the use of the technology as companion-worthy
“PALs can see us, understand our tone, emotion, and intent, and communicate in ways that feel more human,” Raza added.
In a promotional video for the product, the company showcased basic interactions between a user and the AI buddy.
RELATED: Mother admits she prefers AI over her DAUGHTER
A woman is shown greeting the “digital twin” of Raza, as he appears as a lifelike AI PAL on her laptop.
Raza’s AI responds, “Hey, Jessica. … I’m powered by the world’s fastest conversational AI. I can speak to you and see and hear you.”
Excited by the notion, Jessica responds, “Wait, you can see me? That’s so cool.”
The woman then immediately seeks superficial validation from the artificial person.
“What do you think of my new shirt?” she asks.
The AI lives up to the trope that chatbots are largely agreeable no matter the subject matter and says, “I love the print on your shirt; you’re looking sharp today.”
After the pleasantries are over, Raza’s AI goes into promo mode and boasts about its ability to use “rolling vision, voice detection, and interruptibility” to seem more lifelike for the user.
The video soon shifts to messaging about corporate integration meant to replace low-wage employees.
Describing the “digital twins” or AI agents, Raza explains that the AI program is an opportunity to monetize celebrity likeness or replace sales agents or customer support personnel. He claims the avatars could also be used in corporate training modules.
RELATED: Can these new fake pets save humanity? Take a wild guess
In his X post, Raza also attempted to flex his acting chops by creating a 200-second film about a man/PAL named Charlie who is trapped in a computer in the 1980s.
Raza revives the computer after it spent 40 years on the shelf, finding Charlie still trapped inside. In an attempt at comedy, Charlie asks Raza if flying cars or jetpacks exist yet. Raza responds, “We have Salesforce.”
The founder goes on to explain that PALs will “evolve” with the user, remembering preferences and needs. While these features are presented as groundbreaking, the PAL essentially amounts to being an AI face attached to an ongoing chatbot conversation.
AI users know that modern chatbots like Grok or ChatGPT are fully capable of remembering previous discussions and building upon what they have already learned. What’s seemingly new here is the AI being granted app permissions to contact the user and further infiltrate personal space.
Whether that annoys the user or is exactly what the person needs or wants is up for interpretation.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
