“Terror By White Supremacists”: BLM Denounces Coverage Of Co-Founder’s Real Estate Purchases While Facebook Censors Story

We recently discussed the move by Twitter to block the tweet of sports journalist Jason Whitlock criticizing the BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors for purchasing a $1.4 million home in a secluded area of Los Angeles.  A self-professed Marxist, Cullors has reportedly purchased four homes worth more than $3 million and has looked at real estate investments in places like the Bahamas.  As with the censoring of a New York Post article on the Hunter Biden laptop story, Twitter was criticized for the censoring of the story and later said it was a mistake. Now, Facebook has reportedly blocked the underlying New York Post report about the controversy.  In the meantime, BLM itself insists that the controversy is little more than terrorism from white supremacists.

Various conservative sites reported this week that Facebook users could not share the link to a story that shed light on Cullors’ multi-million-dollar splurge on homes. Fox News reported that “an error message appears whenever users try sharing the article on their personal Facebook page or through the Messenger app.”

Cullors has not denied the purchase or the real estate investments, including in her statement below to the controversy. The story was widely circulated because Cullors has long insisted that she and her BLM co-founder “are trained Marxists. We are super versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”  She has denounced capitalism as worse than Covid-19.

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.”

Moreover, the head of New York City’s Black Lives Matter chapter called for an independent investigation into the organization’s finances in the wake of the controversy.

The New York Post and other publications reported that Cullors is eyeing expensive properties in other locations, including the Bahamas.  However, I noted earlier that there is no evidence that 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 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.

Cullors responded to the controversy but did not deny the underlying facts:

“This movement began as, and will always remain a love letter to Black people. Three words – Black Lives Matter – serve as a reminder to Black people that we are human and deserve to live a vibrant and full life. I worked multiple jobs across many organizations my entire life. I’m also a published author, writer, producer, professor, public speaker, and performance artist.”

She later denounced the coverage of her alleged hypocrisy as an effort to “take[] away from where the focus should be – ending white supremacy”.

The main issue for me is not the house or the claimed hypocrisy. It is the censorship of Twitter and now Facebook. 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.

As stated recently in testimony before the House, I remain an unabashed “Internet Originalist,” favoring the free forum for speech that once defined these Big Tech companies. The expanding censorship of the Internet continues to show bias and contractions as politicians push for “robust modification” to silence opposing views of everything from climate change to social justice. Twitter and Facebook now actively determine what people should know and discuss on matters of public interest.

BLM however is denouncing the coverage as raw racism.  In a statement, it insisted that Cullors has only made $120,000 from BLM.  Once again, I see no evidence that Cullors has taken any money inappropriately from BLM. To that end, I can see why BLM would issue a strong statement to knock down any suggestions of fraud or self-dealing with BLM funds. For any such organization, suggestions of fraud can have a serious impact on corporate and individual donations. As for Cullors herself, her own corporate deals would give her ample money for these real estate investments if the story is accurate.

Yet, BLM added that the reporting about her properties “continues a tradition of terror by white supremacists against Black activists.”  What is odd is that the head of NY BLM was that one of those calling for an investigation and presumably it is not part of that “tradition of terror by white supremacists.”

Most of the coverage concerned the irony of Cullors investing millions in real estate given her public persona as a dedicated Marxist. Indeed, some on the left have denounced her as a hypocrite after the disclosures of her investments and homes. Cullors has told followers that “While the COVID-19 illness is tragic, what’s more tragic is capitalism.” Nevertheless, BLM called the coverage of the Cullors investments as a familiar “tactic of terror time and again, but our movement will not be silenced.”

As noted earlier, 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 Brothers but is being actively protected by corporations like Twitter and now Facebook in blocking the underlying story.

196 thoughts on ““Terror By White Supremacists”: BLM Denounces Coverage Of Co-Founder’s Real Estate Purchases While Facebook Censors Story”

  1. “Why is Kamala Harris welcoming the head of state for Japan today instead of Joe Biden?”

    Did you hear in the FAKE NEWS that President Joe Biden did not greet the Prime Minister of Japan this morning because Biden was feeling under the weather and sent Kamala to do his job instead? I missed THAT part.

    “BREAKING: Biden did not come down to greet Japanese PM because he was ‘feeling under the weather’ this morning, per WH official”

    If you have ANY doubt there is bias in the FAKE NEWS, then this is just one more example.

    “Today, President Joe Biden was supposed to welcome the first international head of state to visit the White House during his administration. According to the staffer who runs the president’s Twitter account, Biden was looking forward to it….”


    Where the hell was PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN this morning?

    1. If President Trump was a “no show” to greet the FIRST foreign leader to visit his White House, it would be ALL over the news. Where the hell was President Biden?

      It’s common courtesy for the leader of our nation to receive the leader of another nation. Instead, WH Chief of Protocol greeted Japanese Prime Minister at the West Wing entrance. Then VP Harris? WTH?

      Where is the media?

    2. “This contrast and custom beg the question, where is the president? Can you imagine the media freak out if President Trump had not greeted a foreign leader as is customary with no explanation? It would have driven an entire 24-hour news cycle about how Trump was destroying the relationship with whatever nation the leader was from.

      Biden’s staff thought it was super important to tell America that the president had been briefed on the Indianapolis shooting and to push for gun control after the arrival of Suga. But there was no explanation for his absence…

      There was also no explanation on the press secretary’s Twitter feed or the White House Correspondents Association feed. Biden did arrive to hold a joint press briefing after a bilateral meeting with Suga. The live stream of the event started streaming over 70 minutes before they appeared.

      So Joe is not lost, but he was missing. Will we find out why?”

      No, we will not. Because we have a corrupt fake news media that runs Democrat propaganda, NOT news. Disgusting.

      1. We got a report that President Biden was “feeling under the weather” this morning as the reason why HE did not greet his FIRST foreign head of state to the White House.

        Has there been a “wellness check” on President Biden? Any questions about his health? Any demands for him to release all of his medical records that he has been withholding from the people?

        Of course not. He is a Democrat. The media work FOR him, not against him.

        This is sick stuff going on with the corrupt as hell propaganda press protecting a Democrat president who can’t even show up to greet a foreign head of state.

        Wake up America. Do not go back to sleep.

    3. Kamala Harris is an unaccomplished empty “Trouser Suit” and the false result of a “rigged” election.

      She paid for faux ascendance with sexual favors – she didn’t say “NO” like Me Too Christine Ballsey Ford, and all the Harvey Weinstein girls, she said “YES!”

      She prosecuted marijuana use while using marijuana.

      She is a conforming communist, consumed by an aberrant desire for personal power for personal power’s sake as compensation for her existence as a barren woman with no raison d’etre.

      As Hillary Clinton bore one child for political appearances, Kamala Harris rented a nice white family for the last election.

      Kamala Harris will never be a “natural born citizen” as both her parents were not citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth, and Kamala Harris will never be eligible for vice president or president.

      Kamala Harris IS a national tragedy.

  2. Statement by Ashli Babbitt’s attorney:

    “The shooting of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021 by an unidentified U.S. Capitol Police Officer was an unjustified use of deadly force which violated her constitutional rights. It is clear from video footage that Ashli did not pose a danger to the officer, or any other person, when she was shot. Ashli was unarmed. She did not assault anyone. She did not threaten to harm anyone. There was no excuse for taking her life.

    It is a universal law enforcement standard that a police officer should use no more force than necessary to accomplish a lawful purpose. At 5′ 2″ tall and 110 pounds, an arrest of Ashli could have been accomplished by a single trained officer with a set of handcuffs. At the time of the shooting, there were over a half-dozen police officers in close proximity to the Speaker’s door where Ashli was standing. Some of those officers had just allowed protesters access to the door by stepping aside. Other officers, dressed in full tactical gear, stood among the protesters just a few feet behind the door. Still others stood casually at the opposite end of the Speaker’s Lobby, unconcerned with the activities of Ashli and the protesters around her. All of these officers were in a position to have aided in the apprehension of Ashli if it was necessary. Given her background as a 14-year veteran of the Air Force, it is likely that Ashli would have complied with simple verbal commands, thereby making the use of any force unnecessary.

    However, the officer who shot Ashli never attempted to arrest her. Nor did he call on his fellow officers to arrest her. Instead, he fired a shot into her chest. Witnesses confirm that the officer did not give Ashli a single verbal warning prior to firing. In fact, Ashli was not even aware that the officer was present, as he was located in the doorway of a room off to the side of her field of vision.

    To date, the officer who shot Ashli has not been identified. Neither the Capitol Police nor any other governmental authority has given an account of the facts surrounding the shooting. There has been no official explanation or justification for the use of lethal force in this matter. This lack of transparency impedes the public scrutiny which is necessary to hold government officials accountable in a free society. It also interferes with the ability of Ashli’s family to obtain justice for their loss.

    My law firm and I represent Ashli’s husband and family members. We will continue to investigate this matter. We intend to take appropriate legal action when our investigation has been completed. We call upon the Capitol Police as well as the United States Congress to make public the facts and circumstances of Ashli’s shooting.

    If you have information regarding this matter, you may contact us and receive updates on Twitter at Justice for Ashli Babbitt @ForAshli. Emails can also be to the address alone.”

    Terrell N. Roberts, III

    1. Babbitt had no business even being in the Capitol. By attempting to enter a secured area, by way of broken window, Babbitt totally deserved to be shot. Babbitt died a traitor to her country!

      1. ” By attempting to enter a secured area, by way of broken window, Babbitt totally deserved to be shot. “

        I guess you believe all those criminals arrested without killing them should have been shot because they had no business doing what they were doing?

        Do you know what a traitor is?


    1. correction: With other security personnel in proximity, and confronting a feminine female who was in a vulnerable position, the unjustified murder (i.e .shoot to kill) of the unarmed female veteran, Ashli Babbitt.

    2. Yeah, the militias would love to know the identity of that Capitol Police Officer so they can harass him to death.

  3. The Indianapolis shooter had previous FBI contact due to mental health related issues and threats

    ENOUGH! (Guns, Active Shooters And Pharma)

    There has been a long-standing concern, however, that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients during the early phases of treatment. Pooled analyses of short-term placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) showed that these drugs increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults (ages 18-24) with major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older.
    — gsk.com

  4. $1.4 million Is A Middle Class Home In L.A.

    Professor Turley tells us this home is in a ‘secluded’ area of Los Angeles. Though he doesn’t say exactly where. But $1.4 million is strictly middle class in terms of neighborhood. The ambiance might be charming. But real luxury homes start at more like $3 million.

    1. That’s true. If she lived in Martha’s Vineyard, or certain areas of Hawaii, this would be considered a shack. This is actually a progressive problem for workers who want to live near their work sites and there are no reasonable alternatives where they can remain in character. A for-profit venture.

  5. Hillsdale College’s most recent Imprimis is titled Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It. by Christopher F. Rufo It’s a cancer on this country. Here is an excerpt:

    There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.

      1. There is nothing legitimate about CRT, except to say it is a cancerous narrative fabricated to take down western civilization. This publication explains it all. I understand people don’t have time to read every link or watch every video. I certainly don’t. But this publication details exactly the Left’s strategy and the results we’re seeing today.

  6. In progressive societies, the people of white have Jew privilege of yesteryear, that socially justifed rabid diversitists (e.g. color supremacists) to deny individual dignity, individual conscience, even life that is a “burden” or profitable, and share/shift responsibility.

  7. Enough!

    Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof

    America started here – at the Naturalization Act of 1790, within the year of adoption of the Constitution. You’ve come a long way, baby! You’ve given it all away. Phantom guilt is a terrible thing to waste. A country is a terrible thing to waste; to throw away. White supremacy is not only axiomatic, it is constitutional and it was the law of the land. The American Founders seceded from the British Empire after a long train of abuses and usurpations.

    It’s long past time, men.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  8. Bigotry? Perhaps. A veritable Swaziland, progressive corruption and redistributive change. A diversity (e.g. racist) racket. Some, Select Black Lives Matter.

  9. It’s about time the IRS started a LIFE Style audit on Patrisse Khan-Cullors.
    It wouldn’t hurt to have the audits performed on all politicians. The report the politicians fill out stating their worth is worthless when you look at the range for acceptable answers.

  10. Meanwhile…another mass shooting:



    At least 37 innocent people have died in six mass shootings the US has seen since the beginning of March, statistics show.

    The disturbing trend of deadly gunfire continued Thursday night when a gunman opened fire at a FedEx facility outside Indianapolis, leaving at least eight dead, before turning the gun on himself.

    Earlier this month, President Biden rolled out a series of new gun control measures while decrying the mass murders that have become all too frequent in the country.

    “Gun violence in this country is an epidemic,” Biden said. “Let me say it again: Gun violence in this country is an epidemic, and it’s an international embarrassment.”

    — NY Post

    1. Trans/bisexual angry with trans/homosexuals? Disgruntled Muslim? Black supremacist? Central American illegal alien, drug and human trafficker? Left-wing cuckoo? A psycho off his medication? How will denying Americans’ civil rights mitigate the progress of these lunatics and criminals? How will the government prevent another Biden from lying on his application, or another Obama from transporting weapons across the border?

      Planned Parent/hood? Several hundred thousand excess deaths on a year over year basis. Ban scalpels?

    2. No gun law existing or proposed would have stopped that killing and you know it. Congress shall pass no law …. means no law. Legislating against the law abiding gun owner just engenders disrespect for law.

      1. “Congress shall pass no law …. means no law. ”

        The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

        There are laws against some kinds of speech (perjury, incitement, defamation), against some religious practices (burning witches at the stake), against some arms (fully automatic weapons) and sales of arms (to felons), against some kinds of assembly (riots), …

        SCOTUS: “Like most constitutional rights, the Second Amendment rights is not unlimited.”

        “Legislating against the law abiding gun owner just engenders disrespect for law.”

        The legislation determines whether someone is or isn’t law-abiding. Guns should be regulated like cars: licensing, registration and insurance. Maybe also regulate them like abortion: waiting periods and lectures.

        1. The totally corrupt (i.e. commingling the definitions of “state” and “federal” to provide political support to Obama and his ACA) Supreme Court disagrees with Alexander Hamilton.

          Alexander Hamilton has a few words to say on the subject.

          Go ahead, Al.


          [The Supreme Court has but one power and duty, which is to assure that actions comport with the manifest tenor of statue and fundamental law, the Constitution, which it has sworn to support].

          “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

          “…men…[will]…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

          “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

          – Alexander Hamilton

        2. ‘There are laws against some kinds of speech (perjury, incitement, defamation), against some religious practices (burning witches at the stake), against some arms (fully automatic weapons) and sales of arms (to felons), against some kinds of assembly (riots), …”
          Wrong (or just clumsily mistaken) again on all counts. Perjury, incitement and defamation are strictly defined in the context of the First Amendment and all yield to it in some degree. Hell two of those involving outright lying and one is totally avoidable by shutting up as the law allows. Incidentally, they are punished after the fact not proscribed beforehand. Prior restraint is quite taboo as you seem to be advocating for guns. Burning witches at the stake was never a religious practice but a quirky practice of some cultish New England yankees and the proper crime isn’t witchburning (which I find nowhere) but murder.

          On the topic at hand, fully automatic weapons have been legal with safeguards since 1934.The right to bear arms like the right to free speech is substantially unfettered. But of course, delusional advocates like you love to offer the minor exception as the general rule. Get your facts straight.

          And when you wonder why I think you are the poster child of laziness and prevarication, wonder no more.

          1. “of course, delusional advocates like you love to offer the minor exception as the general rule”

            Of course, you lie as a defense. I didn’t suggest that the exceptions I mentioned are “the general rule.” I pointed out that YOUR claim, “Congress shall pass no law …. means no law,” is false. But you’re not man enough to admit that you made a more extreme claim than is true.

            “Incidentally, they are punished after the fact not proscribed beforehand.”

            Actually, they’re both. That’s what many laws do: proscribe behavior and make it possible to punish after the fact.

            “Prior restraint is quite taboo …”

            If you’d been a better lawyer, you would have led with that instead of making the false claim “Congress shall pass no law …. means no law.” To be clear, prior restraint is generally taboo, but even that has exceptions.

            “when you wonder why I think you are the poster child of laziness and prevarication”

            Hah, I don’t wonder why. I don’t care why you make deluded claims. Perhaps you’re just projecting your own laziness and prevarication onto others.

          2. That’s correct. Witch hunts, warlock judgments, and protests, including social justice, rabid diversity, and planned puppets (e.g. canaries), were a secular choice with secular motives (e.g. redistributive change, retributive change, green deals).

      2. “No gun law existing or proposed would have stopped that killing and you know it. ”

        No law against rape prevents all rapes. We should have laws against rape anyway.
        No law against murder prevents all murders. We should have laws against murder anyway.
        No law against bank robbery prevents all bank robberies. We should have laws against bank robberies anyway.

        1. There is no law that prevents rape… rape-rape. In fact, there was advocacy to deny civil rights to claim a rape culture in order to socially justify the wicked solution (i.e. reproductive rites) or Planned Parent/hood.

          There is no law that prevents murder, and in fact, elective abortions are legal under religious (i.e. Pro-Choice) doctrine on the order of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives annually in America alone.

          There is no law that prevent bank robbery. Redistributive change is a common petty and established criminal practice.

          There are laws that mitigate shared responsibility, and hold people… persons… individuals responsible for their choices, not thought crimes, not diversity dogma (e.g. color blocs, colored attribution).

          That said, there are several positive step to mitigate the progress of armed crimes, including closing the open border loophole (including human trafficking, trail of tears, rape culture, transnational terrorism, viral spread), holding government agents responsible for elective abortions (e.g. the shoot to kill event of the unarmed woman, Ashli Babbitt), stand against diversity and exclusion (i.e. color judgments), and stand for revitalization, rehabilitation, reconciliation, with progressive public smoothing functions to mitigate progressive corruption and collateral damage (e.g. single-parent households, friendship with “benefits” culture).

        2. Aninny:

          “No law against rape prevents all rapes. We should have laws against rape anyway.
          No law against murder prevents all murders. We should have laws against murder anyway.
          No law against bank robbery prevents all bank robberies. We should have laws against bank robberies anyway.”
          More inapposites from the Queen of Know-Nothing. Think about the difference between the right to keep and bear arms and rape/murder/bank robbery. If you said the former is a fundamental right worthy of protections and the latter are crimes deserving of no protection, you’re smarter than a Fifth Grader and Aninny!

          1. Would you prefer that I point out that “No speech law existing or proposed would have stopped that perjury and you know it.”

            You’ve made a stupid argument, and you cannot admit it. Our laws do not exist solely to prevent crimes. They cannot totally prevent crimes. The exist to punish crimes and to make it less likely that the person will engage in the behavior. Over and over you demonstrate what an inept lawyer you are.

    3. Capitol security officer who shoots to kill an unarmed woman, Ashli Babbitt? Self-defense? Negligence? Case dismissed.

      Hutu/Tutsi- style redistributive and retributive change in urbane environments?

      The massacre came amid a troubling surge of anti-Asian hate crimes across the country.

      Asian-American (i.e. 1/2 American) or American of Asian (excluding Russians)?

      Asian privilege? Diversity dogma (e.g. racism, color supremacism), including affirmative discrimination is indeed an insidious and progressive condition in plain sight.

    4. Remember: Every example of violence Donald Trump decries has happened on his watch. Under his leadership. During his Presidency. – Joe Biden 8/27/20

      What say you NOW Joe?? All of this violence happening now is happening on YOUR watch, under YOUR leadership, during YOUR Presidency. Hypocrite says WHAT???

  11. BLM received more than $90 Million in donations last year.

    BLM spent $21.7 million in grant funding on official and unofficial BLM chapters and 30 Black-led local organizations.

    Where’s the other $70 Million?

    Many of the BLM chapters demand transparency:




    “George Soros’s Foundation Pours $220 Million Into Racial Equality Push”

    Mr. Soros’s group will invest $150 million in grants for Black-led racial justice groups, and another $70 million toward local grants for criminal justice reform and civic engagement opportunities.



    What’s really “humorous” about all of this?

    While Cullors claims to be a “Marxist,” she is anything but. Marx provided a class-based analysis of capitalism and exploitation. That is not what Cullors or BLM or Woke types, more generally, are advocating.

    “Intersectionality” or “intersectional theory” wants to adds race or gender or ethnicity to a class-based analysis.

    Cullors goes beyond this by effectively totally tossing out any class-based analysis, in favor of a purely race-based analysis. She tries to self-identify as “Marxist” and tries to proclaim dislike of capitalism, but this is self-contradictory. Cullors would probably be fine if a Black person were in a dominant position of power and directing the exploitation. I wonder what her opinion was of Obama?

    Cullors has a nice gig for herself as a capitalist: she is a landowner and effectively a “small business” owner (yes, petit bourgeoisie) who profits handsomely from her “activism.”

    Shameless, too, I might add, like all of these Woke types. Imagine buying property in Topanga, one of the most lily-white areas of Los Angeles County…..

  12. OT:

    “Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert were the lone two members to vote against a bill that would reauthorize the National Marrow Donor Program, which matches bone marrow donors and cord blood units with patients who have leukemia and other diseases. The bill passed 415-2”

    WTH is wrong with them? I encourage people to join the National Marrow Donor Program, https://bethematch.org/

    The son of a friend is alive today thanks to a generous bone marrow donor. He recovered from his childhood leukemia and has been healthy for 10 years.

    1. Please cite the Constitution wherein a National Marrow Donor Program is mandated or power is enumerated to Congress for this purpose, understanding that Congress has the power to tax only for “…general Welfare…” and that healthcare is not known to be referenced as “security” such as police and fire. Perhaps your goal is for government and Congress to take care of every need of every individual from womb to tomb, as they say.

      Believe it or not, private sector industry is fully capable of accomplishing any task, producing any product (even up to petitioning the Lord) and regulating itself, for fear of being subject to criminal and civil

      litigation, and pains and penalties for failures and fraudulent and malicious escapades.

    2. Without commenting on the substance of the bill or one’s personal beliefs it would be a lot more interesting if one were to be provided with a reason for their votes. Was principle involved? You don’t indicate any knowledge of that. Was there a way to change the bill so that certain objectionable features weren’t included with the bill? Maybe a bill favorable to all was being passed with additions that need not have been included just to get those portions passed. Some people actually think before they sign onto something though that doesn’t make them right or wrong.

      This is Greene’s explanation:

      “No taxpayer dollars should be used to buy aborted baby body parts.
      In fact, this practice (which the Biden admin would love to spend big on) should be ended immediately.
      The American people would be outraged if they knew this was happening with their hard earned dollars.

      1. Planned Parent/hood

        Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?

        1. Do you think you can tell us why they are idiots or can you only rely on a link?

          What did the link say? “I literally cannot imagine why someone would vote against…”

          Greene said why she voted against it ( I am offering no opinion on the subject). That demonstrates how Stupid Anonymous the Stupid is because he quotes a link that doesn’t know the subject matter. Typical link from him that demonstrates his complete ignorance. One can never trust a link from him.

      2. Only Allan S(stupid) Meyer would quote Taylor Greene’s explanation without recognizing that her so-called concern is an imaginary one, since the bill does not fund “buying aborted baby body parts” in the first place. Allan S(stupid) Meyer could have read the bill text and the text of the programs that were reauthorized, but he clearly didn’t bother.

        Maybe Allan S(stupid) Meyer should ask Taylor Greene why she didn’t attempt to amend the bill to address her imagined concern prior to the vote.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, I neither support nor show lack of support for Greene’s opinion as I quoted what she feared. However, the bill doesn’t have to fund the buying of baby body parts if it permits other monies to do so. If that is a case from her perspective she has a point and that is what makes you Stupid.

          1. Allan S(stupid) Meyer is too lazy to find out if his own conjecture is true and too pig-headed to recognize that if that were MTG’s concern, she could have introduced an amendment to the bill to address it. She did not.

            These are just some of the things that make Allan S(stupid) Meyer stupid.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, she provided her reason which has logic behind it. You don’t know what the bill says nor do you know what the link said otherwise you would have been doubly dumb to post it. You are also too Stupid to realize that at 2 negative votes amending the bill is impossible. She said her reasons but you didn’t even know it.

              Why were you so lacking in information when you posted the OT? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid.

          1. You’ve obviously got too much time on your hands. Who cares what this guy “Anonymous” says about Devlin Barrett.

            Anyone is free to post comments, within certain parameters related to civility.

            People post OT comments a lot. If you don’t want to read them, scrolling is a good option.

  13. The gargantuan hypocrisy of this BLM czar is breathtaking. Fleecing millions of $$$ from stupid vacant woke fools and racist apparatchiks. And this femme is the “standard” of Marxism…oh brother she has another bridge in Brooklyn to sell to her toady money donors. I can only surmise the idiots funding this communist shill somehow think the money they let her have makes them feel better….. after all every trained Marxist deserves four mansions….. hell and maybe even a yacht too before the whole scam recedes and implodes.

Leave a Reply