Twitter Censors Criticism of BLM Founder Buying $1.4 Million Home In Predominantly White Neighborhood

Twitter Logo

We have been discussing the expanding censorship on Twitter and social media. The latest example involves the story of Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors, 37, and her purchase of a $1.4 million home in a secluded area of Los Angeles whose population is reputedly less than 2% black. The professed Marxist received considerable criticism for the purchase, including from Jason Whitlock, an African-America sports critic who has also been a critic of BLM.  When Whitlock called out Khan-Cullors, Twitter promptly censored the tweet — leaving a notice that it was “no longer available.”

Last week, various cites like reported, “A secluded mini-compound tucked into L.A.’s rustic and semi-remote Topanga Canyon was recently sold for a tad more than $1.4 million to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled by Patrisse Khan-Cullors, 37-year-old social justice visionary and co-founder of the galvanizing and, for some, controversial Black Lives Matter movement.”

It produced a firestorm of critics who noted that Cullors has long insisted that she and her BLM co-founder “are trained Marxists. We are super versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”  Critics like Nick Arama of RedState pointed out: “[I]t’s interesting to note that the demographics of the area are only about 1.4% black people there. So not exactly living up to her creed there.”

Jason Whitlock posted a link to a story but was promptly censored by Twitter.

Twitter screengrab

The controversy is illustrative of the age of Internet censors.  Tweets, and in some cases Twitter accounts, vanish without explanation. Twitter is notorious for not responding to media inquiries over such censorship and even less forthcoming on the decisionmaking process behind such decisions.

If Whitlock was expressing his contempt for the purchase, it is core political speech.

Even the head of New York City’s Black Lives Matter chapter is calling for an independent investigation into the organization’s finances in the wake of the controversy. This controversy follows an Atlanta-based figure being criminally charged with fraud.  According to the Justice Department, Sir Maejor Page, or Tyree Conyers-Page is accused of using a Facebook page called “Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta.”

The New York Post and other publications have reported that Cullors is eyeing expensive properties in other locations, including the Bahamas.  However, it is not clear if this money came from BLM which has reportedly raised almost $100 million in donations from corporations and other sources. Indeed, Cullors seems to have ample sources of funds. She is married to Janaya Khan, a leader of BLM in Toronto, and published a best selling memoir of her life and then a follow up book.  She also signed a lucrative deal with Warner Bros to develop and produce original programming across all platforms, including broadcast, cable and streaming. She has also been featured in various magazines like her recent collaboration with Jane Fonda.

The issue for me is not the house or claimed hypocrisy. It is the censorship of Twitter of such criticism. Cullors is a public figure who is subject to public scrutiny and commentary. Twitter is rife with a such criticism over the lifestyle choices of figures on the right ranging from Donald Trump Jr. to Rand Paul. That is an unfortunate aspect of being in a high visibility position. I would be equally concerned if criticism of Trump Jr.’s big game hunting exploits or Giuliani’s lavish tastes were censored.

Whitlock apparently is a vocal critic of BLM which he has denounced as a scam and even compared to the KKK. One does not have to agree with such statements to support his right to speak freely without corporate censorship.

Indeed, the greatest irony may not be the home purchase but the corporate support. A professed Marxist, Cullors has not only been paid handsomely by corporations like Warner but is being actively protected by corporations like Twitter.  When it comes to free speech, I support them Cullors and Whitlock. The question is whether both have an equal opportunity to speak on platforms like Twitter.

213 thoughts on “Twitter Censors Criticism of BLM Founder Buying $1.4 Million Home In Predominantly White Neighborhood”

  1. Our friends at BLM have quickly learned (as did the $PLC previously) that being a professional “anti hate” activist pays well. Not only does one receive unceasing critical acclaim from the MSM, you get wealthy while making the world a better place. And in the case of BLM, you’re allowed to strike back at the capitalist class by rioting and destroying property. And they give you money as reparations afterwards. What’s there not to like?

    If I remember correctly the Reverend St. Jeremiah Wright did the same when he moved to an exclusive, white gated neighborhood after retiring his pastorate. Again being a professional “anti white” activist pays well.


    1. Diversity (e.g. racism) racket. Social (i.e. relativistic) justice anywhere is injustice everywhere. One step forward, two steps backward.

    2. Toss all those virtue-signaling Black Lives Matter lawn signs in the trash already. Y’all are so incredibly stupid.

  2. “Patrisse Khan-Cullors, one of the co-founders of the Black Lives Matter movement and a “trained Marxist,” is reported to have bought four homes over the past several years, as her activist profile grew and protests raged around the country.

    Last week, real estate website reported that the “37-year-old social justice visionary” Khan-Cullors had bought a $1.4 million compound in Topanga, a remote Los Angeles neighborhood nestled deep in the Santa Monica mountains.

    In L.A. terms, $1.4 million is not necessarily extravagant, though the activist took criticism for spending what would be a fortune in most other real estate markets, and for buying in a largely white neighborhood after urging people to “buy black.”

    However, it turns out that Khan-Cullors also owns a house in the predominantly black neighborhood of Inglewood — among several other homes. The New York Post reported Saturday that she bought a $510,000 home there in 2016, which is worth about $800,000 today. She also bought a $590,000 home in South Los Angeles that is worth $720,000 today, and bought a ranch in rural Georgia for $415,000 last year, “featuring a private airplane hangar with a studio apartment above it.”

    “The news of Khan-Cullors’s real estate purchases prompted some activists called for a financial investigation of the Black Lives Matter movement. Khan-Cullors is hardly the first to cash in. Tamika Mallory, notorious for her support of the antisemite Louis Farrakhan, has scored product endorsements.”

  3. Ah splendid. The hypocrisy of the BLM Marxist homosexual lot !!!. She can get her filthy lucre off the backs of a failed ideology she has been marketing to corporations and woke mentally low brow types. She has figured out how to legally fleece morons and corporations when she barks. The circus seals slap their flippers and bark in unison while she collects the filthy lucre and lives the highlife. BLM hypocrisy much…you betcha.

  4. Censorship is despicable. But the real story is what has BLM done with all the money that it raised. Where did it go? Who got paid off with it?

    1. A lot of people wonder where the BLM money has come from and where it is going. Probably not the FBI, though. They have the big case involving Lady Ga Ga’s dogs to worry about.

      1. The feds are busy hunting down Trump supporters and red hats. Jail without bail for all of them!

        1. But Antifa destroying federal buildings and attacking federal employees doesn’t interest them.

          1. @young

            Have always wondered why the “Brave Masked Wonderful Warriors of Antifa ™ and their BLM auxiliaries refuse to take their message of love and liberation to the stupid yahoos of rural mid-America. Those people are deplorables and all right thinking leftists should encourage this educational activity by Antifa and BLM.

            Maybe some enlightened leftist could explain why the above haven’t done so as of yet. Since I am a deplorable, I can’t seem to figure out why.


            1. What makes you a deplorable, antonio? (Recall that Clinton only placed half of Trump’s supporters in the “deplorable” category.)

              1. @anonymous

                Let’s just assume for arguments sake that I am a deplorable. Still waiting for your enlightened leftist explanation regarding why The Brave Masked Warriors of Antifa ™ and their BLM cohorts refuse to do what I suggested above.


                1. Why should I assume that?

                  Why aren’t you willing to just say?

                  Here’s what Clinton said:
                  “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
                  “But the “other” basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that “other” basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

                  Are you saying that you’re “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” (or some non-empty subset)?

            2. @Antonio {wondered why Antifa} “refuse to take their message of love and liberation to the stupid yahoos of rural mid-America.”

              They thought they would in Coeur d’Alene and found the sidewalks filled with heavily armed citizens and business owners who clearly did not intend for them to get away with their usual riot and mayhem. They wanted police protection and said they only wanted to leave promptly.

              1. @young

                And they didn’t seem to want to do so in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods either.


        2. Over 71 million people voted for Trump. The FBI isn’t hunting for the vast, vast majority. Of those Trump supporters who’ve been arrested for crimes, many got bail.

          Get a grip, bro.

            1. I noticed that the trolls, even CTHD who should be smarter, can scarcely make a comment without including one or two insults. That usually isn’t a very persuasive tactic in disputes. Perhaps the “believe what I say you moron” has been convincing to them at some time, but it doesn’t work with most people.

              1. So are you, mespo, Art Deco, Olly, Allan, John Say, … all trolls, Young, since you insult people as much as CTHD did?
                Aren’t you smarter than to post insults?

                1. The troll label fits you perfectly and most on the blog recognize that. Just look at all the trolling in a recent time span.

            2. No everyone who says “Get a grip, bro” is trolling. And as far as insults go, it’s pretty mild.

            3. Why is telling someone who makes a false extreme claim (in this case, “The feds are busy hunting down Trump supporters and red hats. Jail without bail for all of them!”) to “get a grip” an insult?

                1. No, you are insulting the entire blog, not just a singular person. That is a bad characteristic seen in rodents that should not exist on a blog of this nature.

              1. Because, in your case the intention is to troll. You are not being Smart. But, most people recognize intentional trolling for what it is.

  5. The real story is not what Cullars did – that’s to be expected – but that Twitter (and Facebook as well as Amazon) are run by leftist Democrats and they are using their products to advance their political goals. Yes, they are businesses and unless they announce their partisanship, businesses are expected to be non-partisan. Social media should announce it’s partisanship instead of hiding it in order to attract subscribers.

  6. “The issue for me is not the house or claimed hypocrisy. It is the censorship of Twitter of such criticism.”

    Are you sure about that, Jonathan?

    1. Pretty sure myself it all goes hand in hand. The woke tools , and the corporations buying ‘loyalty’ of these spin meisters. Then comes along major azzhatz like Jackulus Dorsey and he needs to get the six of these prog trolls and apparatchik mouth pieces of the zeig heil party. He justifies his expended capitol and wokeness by deleting anything truthful and or harmful to his new found lot of drones.

  7. Jonathan Turley: “We cannot read the original tweet. However, the controversy is illustrative of the age of Internet censors.”

    What about blog comments that are removed by you and your moderator/s, Jonathan?

    1. A

      The comments that I have seen which were subsequently removed were profane and offensive (often by Joe Friday).

      If I said something like that, I would be censored for lowering the tone of the debate – and rightfully so.

      Big difference between removing trolls for profanity and censoring.

      Fine line.

      Have you ever appealed a removal?

      1. Part of the problem here is that JT uses the WordPress commenting system, and if one comment is removed, so are all of the replies (and the replies to the replies, …), so LOTS of totally benign comments get removed.

        If he used a commenting system like Disqus (which is also better in other ways), the replies would remain.

        1. Anonymous, that’s an interesting point. If a profane comment is removed and it involved all other comments that replied it means JT not only censored one commenter. It censored multiple commenters. Hypocrisy seems to be a problem for Turley too. Yet he’s completely tone deaf about it when he complains of others doing exactly what Turley is doing.

      2. Perfectly legitimate content has been removed. A Glenn Greenwald video that related to the topic, for example.

        It’s hard to appeal something, when one doesn’t have a copy.

    2. This is HIS house. I have had posts inexplicably removed, too. While I would like to communicate with him as to why they were removed (it would help me learn how I messed up and/or at least understand his reasons), this is his house and comments can stay or not as he pleases. I censor my speech around my children and censor their speech and if a friend chooses language I find inappropriate, I speak to that friend and request they modify their language when in my home. We are in Professor Turley’s online parlor.

      This website is not a huge platform purporting to be an open soapbox, while Twitter is.

      1. Ah, but the blog’s “owner” is a free-speech guy… So, when legitimate comments are removed, it should be of concern to all of us — especially Jonathan Turley.

        1. A: “So, when legitimate comments are removed”

          How do you know they are ‘legitimate’?

          I suspect your goal isn’t to protect ‘legitimate’ comments but to find another avenue to attack Professor Turley because he allows a broad range of comments that you want silenced.

            1. Young and I reached the same conclusion independently. Perhaps others have as well.

              “I suspect your goal isn’t to protect ‘legitimate’ comments but to find another avenue to attack Professor Turley “

              1. No, it’s not. I’ve been reading JT’s blog for well over a decade.

                When comments that Glenn Greenwald has tweeted are deleted, here — and not deleted my Twitter — one has to wonder…

                1. A lot of things seem to disappear and can still be located by a search while other things are deleted by accident. So far I haven’t seen any Glenn Greenwald tweets deleted. Why would Turley want to delete Greenwald’s tweets? Maybe it was underneath a response that was deleted with everything that followed.

                  Why don’t you place a post saying that a Glenn Greenwald tweet will follow and then post the tweet. Those of us that use the email can then see for ourselves.

                  1. It wasn’t a reply. It was at the top of the thread.

                    I don’t care anyone believes it. It happened.

                    It was months ago.

                    1. And it’s happened more than once. The others were similarly credible and not replies. Poof. Gone. Overnight. Not during the day or at the time.

                    2. I’ve had a good number of things that disappeared or were not posted. Your singular undocumented anecdote is meaningless. I have even seen the entire op-ed along with the comments disappear when the other op-eds were working normally. It was back the next day.I have seen one of my posts first posted as a response where it belonged and later it disappeared only to be found on a newer page. I think your opinion is misplaced and borders on paranoia.

                      Why do you blame Turley first when most people recognize there are a lot of problems with WordPress?

        2. You are looking at ways of attacking Jonathan Turley. Typical for those that like others censored.

        3. I agree with this to some extent. And, I do see some interesting potential peripheral elements regarding some deleted comments.

          Lots of good conversation can come out of these concerns.

          What, if any, are the limits of free speech?

          I think that certain adult books can be published but I hate walking into Barnes and Noble with my kids around Valentine’s Day and feeling like turning covers around on some of the displays. How does this fit in?

          What, if any, are the differences between government censorship, censorship by public platforms that are privately owned, and censorship on personal blogs?

          I would like to understand some of Professor Turley’s reasons for deleting some posts. He doesn’t have to give me a reason, though (even it would be appreciated and remain in confidence). I’m not related or an old friend.

          I think the best antidote to bad speech is good speech, conversation clears out a lot problems, and, may the best, most moral argument win.

          In any case, this is his “house”.

          1. Turley has permitted free speech to run rampant which destroys the quality of his personal blog.

            I don’t think he has censored anything based on a particular viewpoint of an individual. That is what is important and that essentially is what one should desire. One doesn’t need four letter words or racist attacks directed to an individual poster. One doesn’t need some other things either but those things are just a nuisance.

      2. Prairie, I have had posts not posted. I have even been locked out. I think that is a Word Press problems. I have had responses deleted and those responses were appropriately deleted since they were between anonymous posters that were accomplishing nothing and detrimental to the blog. As I have said before it would be best not to permit anonymous postings.Postings that I have seen removed were blatantly and intentionally racist. Whoever owns the blog has to make his own determinations whether or not that type of comment should be permitted.

      3. And Twitter is Twitter’s house, and comments can stay or not according to their Terms of Service.

        Twitter doesn’t “purport[] to be an open soapbox.” They’re quite explicit that “We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations or other intellectual property misappropriation, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment. … We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you.”

        More info –

        Turley purports to object to deleting comments, but he (or Darren) deletes comments, and he has no explicit policy about what kinds of comments are/aren’t acceptable. He certainly doesn’t enforce his “civility rule.”

        1. Twitter is a platform (kinda reminiscent of a soapbox which is a kind of platform).

          Section 230 was intended to promote free speech.

          “Section 230 lives inside the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and it gives websites broad legal immunity: With some exceptions, online platforms can’t be sued for something posted by a user — and that remains true even if they act a little like publishers, by moderating posts or setting specific standards.

          “Section 230 is as important as the First Amendment to protecting free speech online, certainly here in the U.S.,” says Emma Llanso, a free expression advocate at the Center for Democracy and Technology.”

          Moderating posts for personal attacks, vulgarity, or illegal activity is one thing. Censoring opinions because the moderators dislike or disagree with the perspective is quite another matter. It is not in line with the spirit of free speech.

          If they cannot be sued, why delete?

          Appears free speech is not protected online.

          Is it the owners who are making these decisions independently or are they being pressured by an outside force?

          1. It seems that you’re assuming that the comment was deleted because ” the moderators dislike or disagree with the perspective” rather than because the commenter has a history of “personal attacks.” Maybe. Maybe not.

            I don’t know the answer to your questions, but I presume that the answer to the first one is that they feel it’s better for their shareholders (and that’s my guess about the answer for the second as well: the outside force is the market). After all, it’s generally legal to make personal attacks and vulgar statements, yet you think it’s OK to moderate comments for those reasons, and I bet they’d agree that their companies are financially better off moderating some kinds of legal speech.

            “Section 230 was intended to promote free speech.”

            Was it? Or is that a side-effect to protecting companies financially, which Congress often does?

            1. Section 230 was to promote the growth of platforms where people communicated with one another. It wasn’t meant to be used to permit censorship. That law actually is an indirect way for government to censor. It permits companies to act against the public interest yet at the same time be exempted from the threat of suit.

  8. On 6 January 1941, FDR addressed the nation and the world with his “Four Freedoms” speech. The world was in the clutches of the rising powers of the Axis powers.

    “As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed.

    We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the “ism” of appeasement.

    We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.”

    His words ring true today. Apparently, it is quite lucrative to be in the business of creating division. As for news sources, I lost faith in their validity. That doesn’t mean a person can’t seek information there but they must do so cautiously.

  9. (music to tune of There’s A hole In Your Bucket)
    Iran wants a nuke , dear Biden dear Biden..
    Iran wants a nuke , dear Biden a nuke.
    Then bomb them Kamila go bomb them go bomb them .
    Blow them to hell and keep them in place!

  10. Those supporting BLM are either hypocrites as to who and what BLM is or they know very little about the group.

    Twitter is near useless as far as an information streamer. It’s a site for opinion, Twitter’s opinion and Twitter’s opinion only.

    Whitlock is right. BLM is a scam.

      1. You are an example of how near useless Twitter is. If one can only read one half of the information where the half that Twitter approves of frequently bends the truth or lies then the sum total of Twitter use leaves an ignorant person more ignorant than if he hadn’t used Twitter at all.

        1. JT disagrees with you that Twitter is “near useless.”

          He uses his Twitter account pretty much daily.

          1. Apparently not near useless for Turley, but useless for people like you that don’t have a reasonable understanding of what knowledge is.

  11. “We cannot read the original tweet.”

    Sure we can, as it was cached by Google ( It said “Black Lives Matter founder buys $1.4 million home in Topanga, which has a black population of 1.4%. She’s with her people!”

    Twitter doesn’t support free speech. Twitter has never supported free speech. Twitter — as a social media company and not part of the government — is free to censor tweets that don’t abide by its Terms of Service, and people are free not to use it for that reason. People can also appeal deletion decisions and call out its inconsistency in content moderation.

    1. @Anon
      Sorry that’s incorrect.

      Twitter has become a public utility.
      Thus should be governed as one.

      When SEC considers tweets by corporations to be a legal method to satisfy Rule FD requirements, and the US Government, along with other governments release public information over Twitter, no longer just a private company. But a public utility. (Which can be privately owned.)

      And this also means that because they are curating (censoring) posts… they should lose Section 230 immunity. In fact. If someone were to sue them and they raise Section 230 as a defense, the courts could then rule against them based on the act of curating and open the door to more lawsuits.

      1. No, Twitter has not become a public utility. It is not a utility at all. People can easily live their lives without ever using Twitter.

        I do not have to go to Twitter to read government information. I can read it on government websites.

        “SEC considers tweets by corporations to be a legal method to satisfy Rule FD requirements”

        So what? Corporations can also publish the info in a newspaper and newspapers aren’t public utilities either.

        “they should lose Section 230 immunity”

        Nothing is preventing you from lobbying your members of Congress to do that. But it doesn’t change the fact that they’re not a public utility.

    2. ““Black Lives Matter founder buys $1.4 million home in Topanga, which has a black population of 1.4%. She’s with her people!”

      She is with her people. She is with those that virtue signal and take every advantage they can without regard for anyone else.

    3. “… abide by its Terms of Service.”

      Can you tell me that Twitter’s “Terms of Service” are the same today that they were yesterday? Or the day before?

      Or is it perhaps some BLM sycophant sitting at a terminal in his/her PJs at home simply censoring anyone he/she doesn’t like?

      1. “Can you tell me that Twitter’s “Terms of Service” are the same today that they were yesterday? Or the day before?”

        I don’t have a Twitter account, but the TOS says that if they change the TOS or other policies, “We will try to notify you of material revisions, for example via a service notification or an email to the email associated with your account.”

        They also keep published copies of previous versions. An example –

        It’s not hard to copy and paste copies of both into a word processing application and have it compare the versions to highlight the changes. Have you ever used that tool?

  12. Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the “HARD-CORE-DYKE!-PROFESSED-MARXIST”, does not live up to what she says she believes in. But neither does any other black, far left Anti-American piece of shit. (The word “Black”, is said with as much contempt, sarcasm, derision, as I can possibly muster. Because I cannot call this thing, and her ilk, what they really are, “Limousine-N”.

    Because if I do I would be blocked from commenting from here on out. Which that also disgusts me to no end. Dear God it does!!!! I despise, censorship!!!!! And don’t even think about acting sanctimonious. You know as well as I do that’s exactly what you think of them also. The difference between you and I is that you, don’t have the guts to admit it.

    1. “You know as well as I do that’s exactly what you think of them also.”

      No, actually, it’s not what I think, and it’s ludicrous for you to believe that no one can honestly disagree with you. What I think is that “I cannot call this thing, and her ilk, what they really are, “Limousine-N”” tells us you’re a bigot.

  13. Obviously there’s money and position in being a Marxist, as long as you’re the one selling it.

    1. All Animals are created equal, except Pigs are more equal. All Pigs are created equal, except some Pigs are created more equal.

  14. BLM….KGB….. Bee eye bikie eye bye old bees….bicki eye bikie oh boo boo!

    It’s the right wing!
    Not the left wing!
    Our bird ….. Is flying off the west wing.
    Fat kids to city kids,
    Kids who fly off rocks!

  15. Why any conservative would remain on Twitter is beyond me. Khrushchev said something along the lines of “when the USSR hangs America the Americans will sell us the rope”. We need Google, we need SOME network television, we need to travel on the airline that is most convenient, I will even give in and say we need football, but we don’t need the NBA, MLB, Coke or Twitter. I cancelled my subscription to the NBA package that I have had for years, I stopped watching baseball and I will never go on Twitter. Come on folks at least try a little.

    1. hullbobby

      You are absolutely right.

      But I get a lot of information from Twitter – a scarce commodity when the media lies.

      Even with T’s censorship, the news gets through.

      Until we get an honest communication vehicle, T is still necessary (waiting anxiously for the new Trump platform).

      T is aggressive in stifling conservatives; even my measly 94 followers were cut to 47 last week. Worse, I apparently “unfollowed” many of my favorite bloggers.

      Shows that the Lefties will not complete on a level playing field.

      Fundamental dishonesty shows through.

    2. Negative, we don’t need football. It is disgusting!!! To see all of the over-paid black pieces of garbage mock my Nation!!!! I quit watching it some years ago and I don’t miss it a bit. And to me anybody that watches it and says they stand against what these players do,

      1. Anon, my thoughts on football are that on a cold Sunday afternoon when your team is playing only one of 16 games it is hard to not watch. I do agree about the politics of it and I also admit to watching less NFL than I did a few years ago.

        My point on Twitter, MLB, the NBA and rags like the Boston Globe, all things I either stopped using or never used, stands.

    3. @hullbobby ,

      Because Twitter is a public utility and if you want your message to reach the largest audience you need to be on it.

    4. You are correct. If a company hates American values and there is one that likes American values spend your money there. If the product isn’t needed, give it up.

    5. Totally agree, gentlemen. Trump is right. It’s time to fight fire with fire. I’m not happy about it, but the left is insisting. Let’s give ’em what they asked for.

      1. Diogenes, those opposing leftist values that include cancelling people and totalitarian values are too polite. The majority of Republican leaders are hiding under their desks. People have to stop being afraid of the tactics being used by the left and respond in any way necessary.

  16. THE MARXIIST was EXPOSED as a Capitalist. Just like the Politicians, such as AOC, using their WOKE positions and getting rich off WOKE and foolish US CORP.’s giving them $$$$$$$. But, if we look under the hood of BLM we most likely find other Snakes who are profiting off of BLM, WOKE, and etc. Just like our the Political/Washington Elite. Twitter Free Speech that is a JOKE. Jack is part of the Rich Tech Elite who want to control and at the same time make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. History is full of Marxist who got rich off of Marxism.

      1. As a staunch capitalist, I especially admire the extraction of wealth if it derives from ethically reprehensible behavior. And as a Marxist, I can justify any apparent inconsistency in my behavior through the self-evident virtue of my adopted ideology. In other words, I profit from the best of both worlds. Beat that, dude.

Leave a Reply