New Financial Controversies Rock BLM as Marc Elias Reportedly Ends “Key Role” With the Group

New financial controversies have arisen about the use of donations by Black Lives Matter (BLM), including additional allegations that co-founder Patrisse Cullors used BLM funds and resources to benefit herself and friends. I previously wrote a column asking why Democratic prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James shown comparably little interest in these allegations even as James sought to disband the National Rifle Association (NRA) over similar allegations. In the meantime, the Washington Examiner is reporting that former Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias has left a “key role” after his firm, the Elias Law Group, had “taken control of its books and finances.”

Black Lives Matter reportedly raised $90 million after the death of George Floyd and still has $60 million in cash.

Even with the rising scandals over the use of donations, many Democratic politicians (who called for the prosecution of the NRA) remain conspicuously silent on the BLM scandals.

Cullors was always a curious choice of corporate donors given her intensely anti-corporate stances. She 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. Nevertheless, corporations poured money into BLM and some, like Warner Bros. hired Cullors to guide their programming.

Cullors recently said that BLM was flooded with “white guilt money.”

However, BLM failed to file required tax reports and some of that money appears to have gone to buying expensive properties and supporting personal friends of Cullors.

Cullors stepped down last year as executive director of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, and there have been other resignations that left the group effectively headless. Those resignations followed the New York Post’s revelation that BLM Global Network transferred $6.3 million to Cullors’ spouse, Janaya Khan, and other Canadian activists to purchase a mansion in Toronto in 2021.

Then reports surfaced of the purchase of expensive homes and other allegations of using BLM resources or funds for personal benefits.

A $6 million Los Angeles mansion has been the most recent focus of these allegations of personal use of BLM assets.

There are also allegations that Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation paid out $4 million in consulting payments to its board secretary, co-founder Patrisse Cullors’ brother, and the father of Cullors’ child. That includes $970,000 to Trap Heals LLC, a company established by Damon Turner, the father of Cullors’ child. It also includes $840,000 to Cullors Protection LLC, a security firm owned by her brother, Paul Cullors.

Some $2.1 million also allegedly went to Bowers Consulting, a firm run by Shalomyah Bowers, the foundation’s board secretary.

Cullors once declared that “while the COVID-19 illness is tragic, what’s more tragic is capitalism.” She is fast making that tragedy a reality.


NB: The original column referred to Elias reportedly leaving the “board” of the group. The article reports that Elias left a “key role” and a “top spot” with BLM. The person who left the board was Clinton associate Minyon Moore, according to the article.

293 thoughts on “New Financial Controversies Rock BLM as Marc Elias Reportedly Ends “Key Role” With the Group”

  1. Commenter Karen Offended By Attack On Tucker Carlson

    Yet Google Search Turns Up Fascinating Revelation


    Karen S says: May 18, 2022 at 7:25 PM


    You said:

    “Fox News, in fact, has extensively promoted The Replacement Theory. There Tucker Carlson has featured ‘the theory’ in over 400 segments.”.

    That is a scandalous falsehood, of which you should be ashamed of yourself.


    A Google search of “Tucker Carlson / Great Replacement Theory” turns up multiple pages of articles. If Carlson never promoted the theory, there’s been a huge misunderstanding!

    But one article jumped out as most interesting; an NPR piece from September of 2020. Below is an excerpt:

    Now comes the claim that you can’t expect to literally believe the words that come out of Tucker Carlson’s mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson’s critics. It’s being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News’s own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

    Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox’s lawyers: The “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ ”

    She wrote: “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”

    Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump’s, added, “Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as ‘exaggeration,’ ‘non-literal commentary,’ or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable.”

    Edited From:


    2. Anonymous,

      This damning admission by Carlson’s lawyers is well known. No doubt, Turley is well aware of it too. But how would Turley defend his appearing on a program with a self-confessed bullsh*tter? I presume the idea of his appearing with the likes of an Alex Jones or a Glenn Beck would be out of the question. However, I would like to hear how Turley would distinguish Carlson’s lies from their lies.

      Turley’s appearances on Fox is besmirching the reputation of George Washington Law School:

      “Jonathan Turley’s Trump Takes Are Not Going Over Very Well at GW Law”

      “On November 16, Dayna Bowen Matthew, dean of George Washington University’s law school, emailed the student body to “share a few thoughts” about the recent election. Toward the end, she included two somewhat eye-raising sentences: “I have received many emails and calls from members of the GW Law community who are concerned about challenges to the election from this law school. As you know, GW Law and the University remain fundamentally committed to academic freedom.”

      “That passage appeared to be an indirect reference to GW Law professor Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor who has lately appeared on the network discussing “irregularities” in the 2020 election results. (He has also been critical of some of Donald Trump’s post-election behavior.) Turley, you may recall, testified at Republicans’ request during the Senate impeachment hearings in late 2019.”

      “Some students seem to be struggling with Turley’s public takes. One, who was enrolled in the most recent semester of his first-year torts class, points to a GW Law group chat in which members have referred unfavorably to Turley’s tweets and political opinions. “And we’re like, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, he sucks,’ ” the student says.”

      Any GW Law students here?

      1. I’m a GW Alum. I see nothing wrong and everything right with Prof. Turley’s brilliant analyses, indeed, if one takes the time to Thoroughly read All of his words, i.e., his complete writing on a subject, instead of listening to words out of context from someone else, one sees that Prof. Turley’s position is Always Neutral… As the great Werner Erhard said ‘The Truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off……’ GWU is Fortunate to have Prof. Turley on board.

        1. Thank you for your positive review of Professor Turley. Your words prove there is some hope, though the bottom feeders on this list will never bother to educate themselves.

          1. Alan, that ‘former student’, Sheridan, is just The Bog Stooge.

            If that was a real former student, he wouldn’t be just popping out of nowhere to defend Turley.

        2. I generally agree with Turley’s analysis since we are both NeverTrumpers. By his own admission, he never voted for Trump, and he long ago disparaged him as a “carnival snake charmer.” Turley regrettably is aiding and abetting Fox News and profiting from their rage provocateurs like Carlson, Hannity, Levin and Ingraham despite Turley claiming that he is repulsed by our “age of rage.”

          I will not cease shaming Turley for his hypocrisy until he publicly explains his decision to turn a blind eye at the rage emanating from his employer while correctly condemning it in the MSM.

    3. Finr that you are referring to an article. But I want to read or hear where exactly Tucker said it. No a hearsay from -, especially – NPR..
      (What was it again on the Russia/Russia hoax and the Hunter Biden story from NPR.. Yeah a really trust worthily source)

        1. You are a fool. Democrats started with such statements. Tucker Carlson followed up by discussing their ideas. You are a pitiful example of a left-wing nutcase.

  2. Eb says:

    “Especially since Jon is willing to turn the spotlight on his ‘competitors’.”

    Yet Turley is silent about Fox’s cable competitors to its *right* which criticize Fox for not being sufficiently loyal to Trump. Newsmax and OAN vilify Fox in the same manner as Fox vilifies the MSM. However, Turley NEVER criticizes the advocacy journalism at Newsmax or OAN. His silence is in keeping with all the Fox cable hosts. Presumably, Turley has been given his marching orders in this respect.

    If only we knew the written contract under which Turley is bound to Fox. Its terms would account for a lot of what Turley does write and, more importantly, what he does NOT write.


    “BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors says her mistakes with ‘white guilt money’ were weaponized against her”

    – New York Post

    The entire communist American welfare state is funded with compulsory “white guilt money.”

    The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional.

    Congress has the Article 1, Section 8, power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding taxation for “white guilt money,” individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, or charity.

    It only took 13 years to reverse the unconstitutional and erroneous Prohibition.

    The Supreme Court decided after 50 years that the Supreme Court was wrong, and the Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court on Roe v Wade.

    How long will it take the Supreme Court to decide that the Supreme Court has been wrong since 1861, and reverse the entire communist American welfare state?


    “Oz says Hannity has been giving him advice ‘behind the scenes’”

    Turley’s own just reported:

    “Former television doctor and Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate Mehmet Oz revealed on Tuesday night that Fox News host Sean Hannity has been giving him campaign advice in recent months.”

    “I want to thank Sean Hannity. Sean has been like a brother to me. When Sean punches through something, he really punches through it. He understands exactly how to make a difference and he’s been doing that this entire campaign,” Oz said during an election night speech with the Senate primary race still too close to call.”

    “Hannity has come under scrutiny from critics for his close personal relationship with Trump and a number of his top allies and aides during his time in the White House.”

    Indeed, one of those critics had been Turley:

    “Covering or Campaigning? Fox News Anchors appear with Trump at Missouri campaign rally”

    “Now Fox is facing an equally serious incident after Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro. Both are known to be close confidants of Trump, but they also work for a news organization that is covering Trump and this election. While many view the journalistic rule of separation as artificial in the age of partisan cable programming, it represents the most glaring breach in the rule that we have seen. The incident raises an increasing conflict with journalistic values and programming.”

    I don’t know it for a fact, but I believe it’s true that Turley made this criticism of Hannity and Pirro BEFORE he joined Fox because when the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot recently released dozens of text messages between Hannity and Trump’s then chief of staff Mark Meadows showing Hannity coordinating and strategizing with Meadows, all we heard from Turley was-


    I suspect that Turley will continue to bite his tongue as yet another of Hannity’s “glaring breaches” is revealed, i.e., strategizing with Oz behind the scenes.

    Turley, don’t self-censor! Speak freely!

    1. What’s worse is that Trump told Oz today to simply declare that he’d won instead of waiting for the remaining votes to be counted, and suggested that other Republicans in PA might “cheat” to prevent Oz from winning: “Dr. Oz should declare victory. It makes it much harder for them to cheat with the ballots that they ‘just happened to find.'”

      1. Sadly, we will not read Turley condemning that lie since he has never even condemned the Big Lie owing to his allegiance to Fox News which is being sued for endorsing it either recklessly or maliciously.

        1. “since he has never even condemned the Big Lie ”

          What Big Lie? 2000 Mules show illegal voting sponsored by Democrat organizations. Based on what was seen, it is evident that Biden lost the election without the lawlessness. The Big Lie is that Democrats won’t admit it.

            1. “Barr says he told Trump that election fraud claims were ‘bulls—‘“

              Some three weeks after the polls closed. A single shoplifting investigation can take longer than that. I guess you didn’t feel like including that important fact.

              “Case closed.”

              Somebody’s been watching too much “Law & Order.”

            2. Jeff, ignorance is abundant in your world. Your knowledge of circumstances is near nil, yet you comment. Are you in competition with Svelaz for the dumbest poster on the blog? That is a challenging feat, but your ability to say nothing prevents you from ever duplicating Svelaz. He says a lot of things, almost all wrong.

              Barr made his statement regarding the evidence presented within weeks of the election. He found some of the lawyer’s claims to be bull, not the claim itself. That is something Barr could not know at the time. That is also why he included the words ‘to date.’ That is where your ignorance begins. You think those words apply forever. They don’t, but fools like yourself believe they do.

              Moreover, since that time, the evidence has been mounting that the fraud claims existed in numerous states, and AGs were moving forward with the investigations. You wouldn’t know that because you don’t read or watch the news. Yes, you have the TV set on, but your brain is always in its OFF mode.

              Finally, we get to 2000 Mules. Have you seen it? Probably not. Why don’t you stop playing with yourself and see the documentary? Only then Then can you debate with intelligence rather than your typical ignorance.

            1. “That film is full of holes:”

              Let’s see what those holes are since ATS cannot find them and uses his ignoble linking ability to link to garbage.

              PBS could not show that the mules in 2000 Mules didn’t exist and didn’t engage in ballot trafficking. PBS also failed to prove that Biden would have won without the fraud. PBS said nothing about ballot trafficking because they know it happened on a wide scale. They know or are afraid the illegal ballot trafficking swung the election. They would be silent, but for that fear.

              Instead of dealing with facts that PBS cannot alter, they changed the subject to smear the narrators and producers. That is the only way the left can fight; smears, lies and criminality. Tarnish reputations without doing trustworthy journalism.

              PBS brings to our attention that 2000 Mules pointed out where a murder occurred and showed what phones were near the scene. That proven correct ability validates the data behind ballot trafficking 2000 Mules provided to the public. Thank you, ATS, for validating 2000 Mules even though you intended to slime those involved with the documentary.

              To conclude the story of PBS’s slime, one has to recognize it is not the job of 2000 Mules to prove the case. That is why the narrators reported that after discovering their information regarding a murder, “we turned the bulk of this information over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” What 2000 Mules did was prove what they were doing was highly accurate, and if there were an award for evidence, 2000 Mules indeed would have deserved it.

              That PBS is trying to slime one of the narrators demonstrates how seriously they are in the belief that 2000 Mules was accurate and the statement ‘Biden likely would have lost’ is true.

              Anonymous the Stupid is unable to separate good arguments from bad. Still, he provides more evidence that 2000 Mules has proven the lawlessness of the Democrats and that Joe Biden likely shouldn’t be in the White House.

              No one has to listen to any claims. All one has to do is look at the facts so obvious the claims flow naturally. What ATS and PBS did was try to slime people. It did nothing to prove the videos, tracking and other tangible things wrong. If anything, ATS confirmed they were right.

              1. S. Meyer doesn’t care to examine all the facts — only the ones that support what he wants to believe. He’s naive, at best. He’ll be singing the praises of ‘2000 Mules’ for the rest of his days…

                “An in-depth look at the information presented in ‘2000 Mules'”

                by ALI SWENSON, Associated Press

                Tuesday, May 17th 2022


                “A film debuting in over 270 theaters across the United States this week uses a flawed analysis of cellphone location data and ballot drop box surveillance footage to cast doubt on the results of the 2020 presidential election nearly 18 months after it ended.”

                1. This is the third rebuttal by link from ATS. There is very little difference from one to the next. Some of the quotes provided were wrong then and are wrong now. The claims about the inaccuracy of locating a person near a ballot box are false. One can track the pings to 18 inches. The article blames glove wearing on the cold that occurred over a long period. They didn’t address that the glove-wearing started the day after someone was prosecuted based on fingerprints. They didn’t bother to note the gloves being removed and thrown in the garbage after depositing the ballots. On and on, they go with this type of cr-p.

                  Anonymous the Stupid will not pick out a claim and detail it on the blog. He deals in links to waste the time of others. 2000 Mules was accurate enough to demonstrate that Biden only prevailed through cheating. Biden would have lost without cheating. I will repost my answer to the last link of Anonymous the Stupid. Take note that Anonymous the Stupid was too Stupid to refute what I wrote or what I wrote was accurate, and Anonymous the Stupid knows there is nothing he can say to prove 2000 Mules wrong and that Biden is President through fraud.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid will continue to post different versions of his earlier failure, but he won’t deal with the responses. He lacks the intellect to do so, and can only rely on linking.

                    Below are the claims in quotes, followed by my response. I am repeating what was written before because all Anonymous the Stupid is doing is repeating debunked claims.

                    “Ballot harvesting” is a pejorative term for dropping off completed ballots for people besides yourself. The practice is legal in several states but largely illegal in the states”


                    The mules engaged in ballot trafficking, which is illegal in all states. Ballot harvesting, legal in some states, has to do with taking a limited number of ballots from family members or dependent people directly to the dropbox.

                    That was not done! The ballots were picked up from a central source (ILLEGAL) and then transported to drop boxes in ILLEGAL numbers. There was no relationship between the mule and the one voting, which was also illegal.

                    This was BALLOT TRAFFICKING which is ILLEGAL in all fifty states.

                    “The film contains no evidence of such payments in other states in 2020.”

                    The evidence is overwhelming, including videos, whistleblowers, and people interviewed who didn’t know what was happening but filled in the empty pieces about what was happening with the ballots.

                    “Plus, experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby.”

                    One doesn’t repeatedly go by drop boxes in the middle of the night 10 times, suddenly wearing gloves to prevent fingerprint detection.

                    Cellphone location data was good enough that their data located a criminal who performed a criminal act where they were checking pings. They gave the police the information, and the criminal was arrested. So much for this type of garbage from the left.

                    “There’s always a pretty healthy amount of uncertainty that comes with this.”

                    But the uncertainty disappears as the number of times at the dropbox and the center increases. That is why they didn’t use only three events. They used ten times which would be a far outlier. Videos and other information fill in more of the details.

                    The quote is uneducated. The commenter should see the film and stop parroting what the left wants to hear. He needs to state the truth.

                    “What’s more, ballot drop boxes are often intentionally placed in busy areas, such as college campuses, libraries, government buildings and apartment complexes — increasing the likelihood that innocent citizens got caught in the group’s dragnet, Striegel said.”

                    3 AM in the morning would be unusual.

                    “Similarly, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might be visiting both a nonprofit’s office and one of those busy areas. ”

                    Would they end up at a ballot box ten times? Of course not. One needs to see the film because the data debunk these bogus statements.

                    “A video of a voter dropping off a stack of ballots at a drop box is not itself proof of any wrongdoing, since most states have legal exceptions that let people drop off ballots on behalf of family members and household members.”

                    But that means they take the ballot directly from the person to the ballot box, or the ballot becomes illegal. They were taking ballots from an illegal center. That is known as BALLOT TRAFFICKING.

                    They were BALLOT TRAFFICKING which is illegal in all 50 states.

                    “And True the Vote did not get surveillance footage of drop boxes in Philadelphia, so the group based this claim solely on cellphone ”

                    So, according to the article, Philadelphia was the exception, and the other places proved the film’s argument. There was further evidence in Philadelphia. Cameras at ballot boxes are not the only cameras available. But that provides the question, where were the cameras and what happened to the film? It sounds like there was even more unlawful activity going on in Philadelphia.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, I have lots of time to waste. I have no unfulfilled needs and plenty of extra time. You should worry about yourself. You are traumatized whenever it is revealed how much time you spend here, who you are, who your aliases are, etc. You are constantly trying to prop up your ego, letting us know your successes, as trivial as they are. You were the helper, not the doer.

                      Having nothing to believe in and having an empty life left you seeking an alternate faith-based religion, Leftism. I would rather be Catholic (not my religion) than a leftist. At least faithful Catholics believe in something good and provide a healthy community, something you despise. Your faith-based religion in the last century killed over 100 million people outside of war and enslaved billions of others.

                    2. SM: That is an excellent point-by-point demolition of the objections to “2000 Mules.”

              2. “Anonymous the Stupid” is said repetitively by this guy S. Meyer.

                The “S” in S. Meyer’s name must stand for STUPID.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid get some new material even if you have to purchase it. I’m getting bored.

  5. I think we have become a jaded people, with fading memories. There was a time when a loyalty oath to BLM became mandatory, in schools, in the workplace, and across totally unrelated social media groups. Anyone who criticized BLM for any reason, or supported cops, was deemed a racist, and blocked, banned, and/or harassed. Some businesses forced employees to take a knee. To write letters of apology for being born white. Being punctual was white supremacy. So was personal responsibility, studying hard, or a nuclear family. It was extreme, and it was violent. We watched Democratic-run cities burn. We saw mass lotting and rioting. Mobs of people attacked police officers, and engaged in racist attacks on white people. They even barged into restaurants and demanded BLM loyalty oaths from diners. Antifa joined in the melee. There was anarchy and the actual overthrow of local areas of government. Police precincts had to be abandoned, and at least one was burned. Police cars were rolled. Too many police officers were assaulted or murdered. Ambushing cops is now a rising national trend. BLM protestors targeted Jews and Jewish businesses. Their leaders opposed the existence of Israel and supported Palestinian terrorists. Don’t comment on it, though, if you value your job or children’s place in school.

    BLM was a racist, anti-semitic, anti-capitalist, violent movement that lionized cop killers. Remember “cops are pigs, fry ’em like bacon.” It was frightening to watch. It was frightening to see the entire country become in thrall, until people were afraid to speak out against BLM. In the beginning, wondering where all the money was going could get you fired or a scarlet letter “R”. About 10 unarmed black people are shot by cops annually. Due to BLM rhetoric, people think the number is more around 10,000, and that cops are killing people for being black. Or driving while black. Black suspects were more likely to resits arrest and fight cops, but if the cop fought back or tried to protect his own life, he was a racist.

    Racist stopped meaning a negative view on an entire race, any race. The Left demanded that we ignore the definition of racism, while extremists called anyone they disagreed with a racist. Think kids should learn the same math used in med school and engineering instead of Mayan math? Racist. Think cops matter? Racist. Think everyone’s lives matter equally? Racist. Think Jesus loves everyone equally? Racist.

    BLM flat out lied about police use of force statistics, and about their motivation. If a white cop shot a black man, for any reason, including him going for his gun, that cop was branded a racist. A cop who shot a black girl who was in the act of stabbing another black girl was branded racist. A black cop who shot a black guy was considered part of white supremacy.

    It was madness. Mob injustice.

    What is more scary than BLM, is the fawning eagerness with which the Left bowed to a violent, racist, totalitarian movement, and forced its will on the rest of the country.

      1. Karl Marx, Lenin, and Stalin did not believe in Judeo Christian morality. What helped the cause was “good”, and what hurt the cause was “bad.” Therefore mass murder was “good” and truthfully reporting on it was “bad.”

        Likewise, looting, rioting, and arson were “good” because it helped BLM’s powerful hold on the country, and pointing it out was “bad.”

        1. “Karl Marx, Lenin, and Stalin did not believe in Judeo Christian morality.”

          Torquemada did. As did every other Inquisitor.

      2. Capitalists engage in fraud all the time. The smearing of BLM is just standard practice because capitalists can’t stand successful Marxists.

        1. “. . . successful Marxists.”

          Marxists have successfully achieved lots of their goals: Pogroms, mass starvation and disease, oppression, nationwide slavery, war, institutionalized ignorance, the deadening of life, . . .

        2. “capitalists can’t stand successful Marxists. ”

          That is the mindset of anonymous. Successful Marxists steal, loot and raise money for charity that they keep for themselves.

          Good job in demonstrating what successful Marxists are.

          In the twentieth century, they did all that while successfully killing over 100-million people. Let’s give the Marxists a prize. Give them the Culture of Death award.

  6. Yes, BLM Is Dubious

    But Why Is Turley Presenting This Today?

    BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors is vastly unknown to the general public. And that by itself illustrates the problem with BLM: ‘It has no leaders with name recognition’.

    Ideally a civil rights organization should have well-established leaders who can be rushed to trouble spots for meetings with local officials. Ironically Jesse Jackson is now an example of that kind of leader. Ironic because Jackson was highly controversial throughout most of his career. Yet Operation PUSH, Jackson’s umbrella organization, was a full-service civil rights group dedicated to avoiding urban unrest. And Jackson, however controversial, would offer himself as an ambassador from Black America to negotiate specific issues on behalf of Blacks.

    But America discovered amid the George Floyd riots that Black Lives Matter is NOT a full-service civil rights organization. They have no one of Jesse Jackson’s stature to negotiate with mayors and police departments. In fact, BLM is not even concerned with preventing urban unrest! Consequently their repeated disclaimer: “We don’t condone violence” became absurdly disingenuous during the summer of 2020 when riots seemed to follow every BLM protest. It was enough to make us realize Jesse Jackson was more constructive than critics imagined.

    Yet one has to seriously ask why Johnathan Turley chose this particular Wednesday to write a column concerning BLM’s questionable management. This only days after a mass shooting where a deluded White supremacist targeted Buffalo’s Black community. The shooter, it appears, was heavily influenced by The Replacement Theory which has essentially gone ‘mainstream’ amongst Trump supporters. Fox News, in fact, has extensively promoted The Replacement Theory. There Tucker Carlson has featured ‘the theory’ in over 400 segments. And Johnathan Turley, as we all know, is a part-time employee of Fox News.

    Therefore with this column Professor Turley wishes to steer the conversation away from White supremacists infected by crazed, Fox-promoted conspiracies. And what better way to do that than a column calling our attention to BLM’s finances.

    Yeah, reading this column made me forget all about mass shooters and the simple access to weapons they enjoy at a time when abortions are harder to obtain than guns).

    1. Anonymous:

      You said:

      “The shooter, it appears, was heavily influenced by The Replacement Theory which has essentially gone ‘mainstream’ amongst Trump supporters. Fox News, in fact, has extensively promoted The Replacement Theory. There Tucker Carlson has featured ‘the theory’ in over 400 segments. And Johnathan Turley, as we all know, is a part-time employee of Fox News.”

      That is a scandalous falsehood, of which you should be ashamed of yourself.

      Replacement Theory is a Nazi antisemitic belief that Jews are directing the deliberate dilution of the Aryan race using black and other minority immigration.

      Left wing activists keep trying to claim that border security is racist. Unless you have a totally open border, which decimates the nation’s support system, and allows bad actors in, then you’re a racist. The most recent attempt to link opposing illegal immigration with racism is to equate it with Replacement Theory.

      However, the vast majority of conservatives support legal immigration. Most legal immigration comes from Latino and black nations. Hence, it’s not the skin color they object to, but the illegality.

      Tucker Carlson opposes illegal immigration. He supports legal immigration. There is absolutely no connection to Replacement Theory. It’s terrible for you to say such a thing about anyone, let along millions of conservative voters. The desperate attempt to paint opposing illegal immigration as an aspect of Replacement Theory really ramped up with so many Americans cried foul that the US government not only encouraged millions of illegal immigrants to enter the United States annually, but now is stockpiling massive amounts to baby formula at a time when desperate American and legal visa holder Moms cannot find it on store shelves. American babies and those of our legal, invited guests are going hungry, yet there are multiple warehouses of unused baby formula at our wide open Southern border. While I agree that if you take an illegal immigrant infant into custody, you then have the responsibility to feed them, the Biden Administration has encouraged millions of illegal crossings that should never have happened. There would’t be so many children in detention if Biden enforced our border. Not only that, but I saw video with my own eyes of our government stockpiling far more baby formula than they needed, worsening the baby formula shortage. Women are desperate, crying on social media for help finding food for their babies. This played bad, so now those mothers will be accused of ascribing to Replacement Theory if they object to all that stockpiled formula at the border, reserved for illegal aliens.

      Don’t you get tired of pretending to see racists and Nazis everywhere?

      1. Jesse Jackson was a shakedown artist. He and Sharpton both would instigate mobs and then move in to clean up. You are lost, Anonymous.

        1. Pew Research Center polled immigrants and found 80% of them disliked whites and Christians, and the Democrats are doing everything they can to feed that bigotry against whites. The Democrats are the racists. We need to slow immigration and trade. The Democrats are no longer assimilated immigrants to American values. Immigrants are assimilating Democrats to third-world values. Hence, speech codes and communism.

          1. You believe that “Pew Research Center polled immigrants and found 80% of them disliked whites and Christians,” but apparently you cannot bring yourself to actually link to the poll.

            I’m not going to take your word for it.

            Your claim that “Democrats are doing everything they can to feed that bigotry against whites” is bunk. I’m a Democrat. I’m also white (though because I’m a Jew, some anti-Semites in the US would argue that I’m not white, an attitude that has a long history). I’m not trying to feed “bigotry against whites.”

            1. Don’t take my word for it then. I remember reading that Pew document online some years ago and was shocked, but I can’t locate the link now. Probably buried by Pew.

              “Your claim that ‘Democrats are doing everything they can to feed that bigotry against whites’ is bunk.”

              I won’t take your word for it.

        2. “Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party’s political ambitions. In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country.

          Gee, I don’t know. Maybe 1.3million illegal aliens let into the country by Democrats over the last 16 months, sound a lot like a plan to change the population of the country.
          Tucker wasn’t advocating, he was telling everyone the Dems plan.

          1. If they’ve applied for asylum and are awaiting adjudication, they’re not here illegally. Not sure where you’re getting your number from.

            Regardless, Carlson is primarily talking about **voters** and legal immigration, not illegal aliens.

            1. Carlson is talking about all the aliens that entered the country illegally. He is not against legal immigration.

              You are being deceitful.

            2. Biden eliminated ‘remain in Mexico’ as one of his first EO. The courts found he broke the law, and forced him to reinstated the process, but we all know he is ignoring the order. In the mean time close to 90% of the illegals here, break the law again and dont show up for a court date.
              Democrats are actively practicing replacement theory. Because Democrats need a dependent class of people.

          2. Iowan2, Hispanics that were born in the United States are trending republican.

      2. Karen:

        It may pass as plausible that Tucker’s comment that immigrants make this country “dirtier” was referring to the garbage they make as opposed to themselves, but the fact that he knew his viewers could take his comments the wrong way demonstrates his bad faith.

    2. To answer your rhetorical question, the author of this vile garbage is poor white trash. To refer to the author of this bigoted rubbish a racist, would be a gross understatement.

    3. Ideally a civil rights organization should have well-established leaders who can be rushed to trouble spots for meetings with local officials.

      You mean like leaders, Al Sharpton , Jesse Jackson Jr, Jusse Smallett, and Karine Jean-Pierre ?

      Of course, Sharpton and Jackson where the inventors of the racist shack down scam. The would go to a corporation like NIKE, and tell them their work force, or management floor wasn’t diverse enough, but a $million donation to the Rainbow Coalition, would buy their public support.

      But Sharpton and Jackson were skilled confidence men, who spent years working the long con. Not these know nothing shills with BLM

  7. The real scoundrels are the ones who gave these frauds $90 million so they could get the radicals off their backs and sic them on the rest of us.

Leave a Reply