HOLTON: Why Is Louisiana’s Media Attacking Efforts To Aid Law Enforcement In Keeping Us Safe Against Terrorism?

The Hayride, by Christopher Holton, March 6, 2017:

In case you haven’t noticed, the global jihadist insurgency has entered a new, more dangerous phase in the past two years.

The number of jihadis and the number of attacks that they have carried out–as well as the number of casualties they have inflicted and the number of countries they operate in–has grown drastically.

The excellent, private IntelCenter organization estimates that the Islamic State has killed 18,000 people in 28 countries since they declared their Caliphate on 29 June 2014.

This includes individual acts of jihad carried out in this country in places like Orlando, Chattanooga, Boston, Garland, San Bernardino, Queens and Philadelphia.

There is no reason to believe that this trend won’t continue. The effort to take down the caliphate was half-hearted at best because it simply wasn’t something President Obama was interested in. He apparently felt that the killing of Osama Bin Laden should have been enough. Never mind that the world has become awash in jihad since then.

Because of the complete lack of leadership on this vital issue, our federal bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus has not even allowed to study Islamic threat doctrine–the very doctrine that the Islamic State cites repeatedly.

Time and time again we find that the warning signs of the jihadi attackers were missed. We were warned about the Tsarnaev brothers (the Boston bombers) repeatedly by the Russians and the FBI knew that their mosque was founded by a convicted Al Qaeda member, yet they were still able to carry out their attack.

There were warning signs about the San Bernardino jihadis as well. The female, Tafsheen Malik, used a fake address to obtain a visa to enter the U.S. She also gained entry into the U.S. under the horribly flawed federal “Visa Express” program that allowed applicants to bypass the interview in the screening process.

Moreover, DHS whistleblower Phillip Haney has testified before Congress and written in his new book, See Something, Say Nothing, that he had been ordered to cease investigations into Tablighi Jamaat, the notorious Islamist organization that had ties to the San Bernardino mosque.

Then there is the case of Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, who was twice interviewed by the FBI because he was on the contact list for an American Islamikaze bomber in Syria and because he made “incendiary” remarks to co-workers about jihad. Oh, and his Dad posted pro-Taliban online videos too. He was given the “all-clear,” only to end up massacring 49 innocent Americans.

What all this points to is the vital need for state and local law enforcement to take the lead against jihad inside this country. I promise you, the NYPD does not wait for the FBI to vet suspected terrorists. Other state and local agencies around the country need to take the same approach, albeit with resources that can’t match the NYPD, which is probably the most effective counterterrorism law enforcement organization anywhere in the world.

The fact is, the Feds are unaccountable. They can’t follow up all the leads they have now and very often have a lack of knowledge as to what or who they are dealing with. I have a hunch that the FBI agents who interviewed Omar Mateen probably thought he was creepy at best, but they had nothing to charge him with and they had to go about their business. Complicating matters even more is the fact that both the FBI and DHS have been forbidden from tying Islam to terrorism. That restriction right there makes them ineffective at conducting counterintelligence operations.

State and local cops are not unaccountable. They have deep roots in their communities. If an Omar Mateen is in someone’s precinct and they know he is a known associate of an Islamikaze bomber and made threatening statements about terrorism, they will keep an eye on him way past the initial interview. There won’t be much more important in that precinct once an Omar Mateen comes to the local cops’ attention.

Furthermore, state and local police are not under any restriction to refrain from studying the enemy threat doctrine. If the local sheriff or police chief is bold enough, he will mandate that his intelligence and investigative people get educated about the threat in an objective, unbiased manner–allowing the subject matter to take them where it leads them, rather than starting from the position that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism.

State and local police are now at the tip of the spear in this war. 15 years ago America sent soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines overseas to protect us all from jihad. Today, local law enforcement is being tasked with protecting soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines from Jihad inside our own country. This is a profound shift in this war that has been lost on the overwhelming majority of the American people.

In Garland, Texas, it was a 62-year old motorcycle cop who gunned down the two jihadi attackers who were wielding AK47s.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, it was the local police who gunned down Mohammad Abdulazeez.

In Boston, it was Boston PD who ran down the Tsarnaev brothers.

In Queens, New York, it was rookie patrolmen who were targeted by and gunned down Zale Thompson.

The San Bernardino shooters were killed by members of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department.

In Philadelphia, it was a police officer sitting in his patrol car that was targeted by Edward Archer in the name of ISIS.

And, of course, we know that it was the Orlando Police Department who responded to Omar Mateen’s massacre.

By the time DHS and FBI show up, they have to ask permission to cross the crime scene tape. In Marine Corps parlance, by the time the Feds get involved, it’s “right of bang.”

State and local police need to prepare to operate against jihadis “left of bang,” and that means taking their own initiative and not depending solely on our bureaucratized, federal counterterrorism apparatus for training or intelligence about potential bad guys in their jurisdictions.

Fortunately, increasingly, local sheriffs departments around the country have recognized the threat from jihad and have taken the initiative in training their personnel in the strategy and tactics needed to prepare, including studying the enemy threat doctrine as our jihadist enemies themselves teach it.

One such curriculum of training is from an organization called Understanding the Threat (UTT). The leader of this organization is former FBI agent and Force Recon Marine officer John Guandolo. There is no one in America more qualified to conduct training on the threat from jihad than this organization. Mr. Guandolo was decorated by the FBI for establishing the original training program for the Bureau on the Global Islamic Movement, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Guandolo’s colleague, Chris Gaubatz, is the only known operative to have conducted counterintelligence of HAMAS, when he interned for the Council on American Islamic Relations. That operation is detailed in Paul Sperry’s book, Muslim Mafia.

Recently, UTT has conducted training for several departments and agencies in Louisiana. Their program has come under fire from two out of state organizations with questionable ties and a record of nefarious activity. Louisiana’s media, including the Times-Picayune’s J.R. Ball at the link just above, have repeated the attacks of those organizations.

The first organization is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC). At one time the SPLC may have served a useful purpose, but those times have long since passed. Today, the SPLC uses the term “hate” to silence and intimidate those with whom it disagrees politically.  The SPLC’s abuses of the term “hate” became so bad that in 2014, during the Obama administration, the FBI quit using the SPLC as a hate crimes resource.

The SPLC’s fast and loose use of the term and its blacklisting of those whom it disagrees with has even contributed indirectly to violence when Floyd Lee Corkins attacked the Family Research Council’s headquarters after viewing the SPLC’s irresponsible list of “hate groups.” Corkins shot and wounded a security guard during his attack.

The fact that the media regurgitates SPLC statements and data without question demonstrates the degree to which our free press has become corrupted by ideologues who no longer act as responsible journalists to report the news, but work as advocates for certain viewpoints.

The other organization that has raised objections to UTT’s training program in Louisiana is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a wing of the notorious Muslim Brotherhood here in the United States.

Michael Kunzelman of the Associated Press actually referred to CAIR as a “civil rights group,” again demonstrating the degree to which the media have been infected with corruption.

CAIR’s statement on the training actually included chilling code language used internationally by Islamist organizations to silence free speech. CAIR referred to John Guanadolo as an “Islamophobe.”

The term Islamophobe was made up by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood organizationwhose founding board included Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide for the Muslim Brotherhood for decades.  Qaradawi is also infamous for having been banned from travel to the US, the UK and France for his ties to terror. Moreover, he is particularly notorious for having, as a renowned Shariah scholar, instructed Muslim men on how they are to properly beat their wives and endorsed the barbaric, Shariah practice of female circumcision (known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

IIIT coined the term Islamophobe with the express purpose of silencing critics of the Global Islamic Movement and to label enemies.

For CAIR to label someone as an Islamophobe is not to be dismissed or taken likely, especially given CAIR’s nefarious activities and those of its members, employees and directors:

  • The FBI suspended all formal contacts with CAIR due to evidence demonstrating a relationship between CAIR and HAMAS, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
  • In the U.S. v the Holy Land Foundation, the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in U.S. history, CAIR was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial.
  • CAIR opened its first office in Washington, D.C. with the help of a grant from the Holy Land Foundation., a charitable organization that was shut down by the US Treasury Department for funding Jihadist terrorist organizations.
  • In 2014, US ally the United Arab Emirates officially designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.
  • In March 2011, Muthanna al-Hanooti, one of CAIR’s directors, was sentenced to a year in federal prison for violating U.S. sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq.
  • In 2006, the co-founder of CAIR’s parent organization, IAP (Islamic Association for Palestine), Sami Al-Arian, was sentenced to 57 months in prison on terrorism charges for financing Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist organization according to the US State Department.
  • In 2004, CAIR-Northern Virginia director Abdurahman Alamoudi pled guilty to terrorism-related financial and conspiracy charges, which resulted in a 23-year federal prison sentence. Alamoudi was a major financier for Al Qaeda. It’s was John Guandolo’s team that took down Alamoudi.
  • In 2009, Ghassan Elashi, who served as a founding board member for CAIR’s regional chapter in Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison after being convicted of 10 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; 11 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist; 10 counts of conspiracy to commit, and the commission of, money laundering; one count of conspiracy to impede and impair the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and two counts of filing a false tax return.
  • Randall Todd (Ismail) Royer, who served as a communications specialist and civil rights coordinator for CAIR, trained with and set up an internet-based newsletter for Lashkar-I-Taiba, an al Qaeda-tied Kashmir organization that is listed on the State Department’s international terror list and was also indicted on charges of conspiring to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan and was sentenced to twenty years in prison on April 9, 2004.
  • In September 2003, CAIR’s former Community Affairs Director, Bassem Khafagi, pled guilty to three federal counts of bank and visa fraud and agreed to be deported to Egypt after he had funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and had published material advocating suicide attacks against the United States, illegal activities which took place while he was employed by CAIR.
  • Ann Arbor, Michigan CAIR fundraiser Rabih Haddad was arrested on terrorism-related charges and was deported from the United States due to his work as Executive Director of the Global Relief Foundation, which in October 2002 was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

For most citizens of Louisiana, we can be thankful that Understanding the Threat is training our law enforcement heroes about this threat.

The People’s Cube: Southern Poverty Law Center is a Hate Group

splc_hate_groupTruth Revolt, Feb. 22, 2017:

From our friend Oleg Atbashian, creative force behind the brilliant satirical site The People’s Cube comes this brilliant non-satirical commentary on one of the left’s favorite attack dogs, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Don’t miss this.

The word “haters” is a very loaded term, and a nonsensical one to boot. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), for example, claims to be the ultimate arbiter of “hate,” “haters,” “hate groups,” and “hate crimes.” This 501(c)(3) nonprofit collects handsome sums of money under the pretext of keeping what they call a hatewatch. At the end of 2016 their endowment stood at $302.8 million. That means they have a direct financial interest in painting a picture of a widespread organized hatred in the United States, which “proves” their importance and scares the donors into parting with even more of their money.

As of this writing, the official SPLC list contains 917 “hate groups” – a strikingly high number that makes one wonder just how arbitrary their criteria of “hate” are. A closer look at the numbers and at the SPLC interactive Hate Map shows a bizarre mix of patriot, Christian, and conservative groups, including ACT for America and Center for Security Policy, lumped together with KKK, neo-Nazis, and black separatists.

A “chilling” SPLC chart shows a 197 percent increase in “anti-Muslim hate groups,” with top three featured “extremists” being – wait for it – David Yerushalmi, Robert Spencer, and Frank Gaffney Jr.

This author, who happens to be friends with Robert Spencer and has had the pleasure of shaking hands with David Yerushalmi and Frank Gaffney, can testify that these three gentlemen are highly intelligent, rational, accomplished, and good-natured people without any signs of “extremism” one would expect from such a characterization.

Just what exactly makes one a “hater” in the eyes of the SPLC?

They would argue that a “hater” is a member of a “hate group” who commits “hate crimes” and/or engages in “hate speech.” The key word here is “hate.” Apparently, to make it easier for the SPLC donors to part with their tax-deductible dollars, they are led to believe that America is so full of hateful, one-dimensional psychopaths that if it weren’t for the SPLC’s courageous efforts, the above donors would be hanging from trees, their families raped, and their estates pillaged and burned.

No doubt, the donors only want to protect their families and their communities out of great love. It’s a natural human trait: if you love something, you hate those who endanger the things you love. But here’s the thing: doesn’t the irrational fear and hatred of conservative groups make these SPLC donors “haters” and “conservaphobes”? And doesn’t this make the SPLC itself a “hate group” that engages in “hate speech” against some of America’s most upstanding citizens with whom they disagree ideologically? In fact, doesn’t their effort to mislead people into hating their fellow citizens qualify as a “hate crime”? Why not? By what objective criteria can this be determined?

Is it acceptable for an American citizen, who loves his family and his country, to hate those who mean them harm? Not according to the SPLC, whose “hate watchers” document all such patriotic utterances as “hate speech.” How far does this principle go? Do American soldiers and intelligence operatives who capture and kill Islamic extremists commit “hate crimes” and does that make the U.S. Department of Defense an “anti-Muslim hate group”? Why not?

Curiously enough, the SPLC list of “hate groups” excludes any existing jihadist groups or associations. Neither does it include the anti-Semitic SJP groups with over 126 chapters at American universities. Is the SPLC losing money by not expanding its “hate group” list? Or is it rather saving money by appeasing certain deep-pocketed donors with an anti-Israel agenda?

Even more telling is the absence of violent left-wing groups on that list – especially those responsible for the recent riots in Washington, D.C., Berkeley, and elsewhere. If these don’t qualify as “hate groups” that engage in “hate speech” and commit “hate crimes” then none of these terms has any meaning at all.

One suspects that in the SPLC book of virtues, violent leftist and Islamic extremists are probably listed as “love groups” that engage in “love speech” and commit “love crimes.” It is quite obvious that the SPLC considers itself a “love group.”

That, in the SPLC mind, gives it the moral license to dehumanize conservatives by implying that they have nothing but hatred in their dark, shriveled hearts, and that they have no other motivation than a burning, all-consuming hatred towards women and minorities. How else can we interpret the SPLC’s effort to reduce the entire life’s work and intellectual accomplishments of their fellow citizens to a single disparaging word, “hate”?

This can go both ways, though. Looking at the motivation of leftist groups and their icons, one could say that the SPLC’s portrayal of conservatives is a mere projection of their own condition.
Until now conservatives didn’t call the left “haters” because this was not their game. The best they could do was to quote Matthew 7:5: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” But that cumbersome phrase doesn’t fit into a 140-character Tweet, unlike the pithy and effective “hate speech.”

But that is changing. Encouraged by President Trump’s example, conservatives have begun to talk back, causing the SPLC “hate counter” to go through the roof.

In SPLC’s own words, all “hate groups” are characterized by “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” That perfectly describes the left’s own beliefs and practices, starting with the original attacking and maligning of all business owners, bankers, traders, and their top-level employees (the so-called “bourgeois class”) as parasites and vicious oppressors.

Hasn’t Barack Obama attacked and maligned white blue collar workers in the flyover country as “bitter clingers”? The SPLC definition makes him a hater. Hasn’t Hillary Clinton attacked and maligned a significant portion of Americans as “deplorables”? She must be a hater. Hasn’t the “mainstream” media attacked and maligned Trump supporters as racist, sexist, uneducated bigots? That makes the “mainstream” media a “hate group.”

A wide array of leftist groups is currently busy spreading hatred among Americans by attacking, maligning, dividing, and pitting classes of people against each other: the poor against the rich, women against men, blacks against whites, gays against straights, transgendered against cisgendered, minorities against majorities, blue states against red states, the north against the south, nature against humans… Entire classes of people are being attacked and maligned for their immutable characteristics. The entire human race is being demonized for being a carbon-based life form.

The left has become the largest and most powerful “movement of hate” the world has ever known.

They’ll tell you that “in order to qualify as a ‘hater’ one must be in a position of power,” but such excuses no longer work. The left is the power. Having taken over the media, education, publishing, entertainment, most corporations and charities, all government bureaucracies, and even some churches, let alone what is now called the “deep state,” the left is unabashedly flexing its muscles, trying to show Donald Trump who the real boss is, unwittingly abandoning the old game of pretense and making it known that the left is no longer the underdog and hasn’t been one in a long time.

Though the leftists still cling to their masks of valiant rebels, Americans increasingly see them for who they really are – deposed despots who’ll stop at nothing to get their power back. The true rebels of today are fighting the leftist establishment. The left loves being in control and hates the American people who threaten to take it away.

Here are some quotes from a revered leftist icon, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, whose image is emblazoned on countless T-shirts around American campuses.

To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredón [execution wall].

Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine.

Granted, Che was a revolutionary who loved big ideas and hated those who stood in their way. The same applies to some of the leftist leaders in America today. Some other leaders hate the “deplorables” for their refusal to submit to their dictate. But what explains the unprecedented hatred coming from those at the bottom of the leftist food chain, who have neither the big ideas not the power?

The latter include most Democrats, government workers, welfare recipients, establishment media, certain unions, career politicians, crony capitalists, and other beneficiaries of the corrupt redistributive hierarchy that is now endangered by Trump’s presidency. They love their unearned material and emotional comfort; while that great passion stays under the radar, their hatred of anyone who wants to disrupt it is rather conspicuous. You haven’t seen a hater until you’ve tried to take drugs away from a drug addict.

Thus the left has become the reactionary force of today. Paradoxically enough, in an abstract semantic way, the leftists are now the true “conservatives” as they try to “conserve” the existing system that ensures their comforts. At the same time, the traditional “American conservatives” who have been “conserving” the ideas of America’s founding, have now become the true revolutionary vanguard.

Until recently, many conservatives dismissed the left as bumbling incompetent fools, who weren’t smart enough to experience cognitive dissonance.

How is it possible to hold so many mutually exclusive beliefs?

  • To preach tolerance and be so intolerant?
  • To grieve for terror victims and justify terrorism?
  • To stand up for workers and destroy their jobs?
  • To march for peace and defend the militants?
  • To denounce corruption and vote for the corrupt?
  • To espouse non-violence and commit violent acts?
  • To speak of liberties and promote government dictate?
  • To bolster feminism and deride successful women?
  • To cheer gays and aid the gay-bashers in the Middle East?
  • To champion minorities as a group and hold them down as individuals?
  • To care about the children and mutilate their minds?
  • To denounce guns and hire armed bodyguards?
  • To support the troops and side with their murderers?
  • To demand love and be full of hate?

As it turns out, those are not contradictions; they contain a very consistent logic. The key to cracking this logic is a statement attributed to Karl Marx, which, regardless of whether he wrote it or not, is perfectly aligned with the moral philosophy of progressivism:

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

This also clarifies the Orwellian leftist slogan, “no justice, no peace.” In other words, true love awaits those who join the march towards socialism over the bodies of fallen enemies. With all the talk of love and unity coming from the left, we have yet to hear a call to start loving and stop hating the enemies of socialism. “Love trumps hate” is for suckers. “Trample or be trampled” is more like it. There can be no peace and there can be no love between the left and their opponents.

For more insight into the real meaning of love and hate coming from the left, watch this 5-minute animated video.

LOVE and HATE

Written by Oleg Atbashian. Narrated, animated, and produced by James Lorenz.

How the Southern Poverty Law Center Faked an Islamophobia Crisis

spl

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 21, 2017:

Look out!  It’s another fake Islamophobia crisis.

“Huge Growth in Anti-Muslim Hate Groups During 2016: SPLC Report,” wails NBC News. “Watchdog: Number of anti-Muslim hate groups tripled since 2015,” FOX News bleats. ABC News vomits up this word salad. “Trump cited in report finding increase in US hate groups for 2nd year in a row.”

The SPLC stands for the Southern Poverty Law Center: an organization with slightly less credibility than Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, and without the academic degree in greasepaint.

And you won’t believe the shameless way the SPLC faked its latest Islamophobia crisis.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s latest “hate group” sightings claims that the “number of anti-Muslim hate groups increased almost three-fold in 2016.”

That’s a lot of folds.

And there is both bad news and good news from its “Year in Hate and Extremism.”

First the good news.

Casa D’Ice Signs, the sign outside a bar in K-Mart Plaza in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is no longer listed as a hate group. The sign outside the bar had been listed as a hate group by the SPLC for years. The owner of Casa D’Ice had been known for putting politically incorrect signs outside his bar. So the SPLC listed the “signs” as a hate group. (Even though there was only one sign.) Not the bar. That would have made too much sense.

Since then Casa D’Ice was sold and the SPLC has celebrated the defeat of another hate group. Even if the hate group was just a plastic sign outside a bar.

But the bad news, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is that anti-Muslim hate groups shot up from only 34 in 2015 to 101 in 2016.

What could possibly account for that growth? Statistical fakery so fake that a Vegas bookie would weep.

President Trump is on the cover of the SPLC’s latest Intelligence Report: a misnomer of a title from an organization whose intelligence gathering led it to list a bar sign as a hate group.

But there’s actually another phenomenon responsible for this startling rise reported by the SPLC.

The SPLC decided to count 45 chapters of Act for America as separate groups.

How do you get a sudden rise from 34 to 101 hate groups? It helps to suddenly add 45 chapters of one group. Act for America isn’t a hate group. It’s also just as obviously not 45 groups.

And it didn’t come into existence last year.

Act for America was only listed as one group in the 2015 list. It shot up to 45 now.

The SPLC this year listed the Los Angeles chapter of Act for America as a separate group. But the chapter has been around for quite a few years.

Furthermore Act for America boasts not 45, but 1,000 chapters across the country. Why list just 45 of them? Look at it from the SPLC’s perspective. Next year, it can add 200 chapters and claim that anti-Muslim hate groups once again tripled. And then it can do the same thing again the year after that.

That way the Southern Poverty Law Center can keep manufacturing an imaginary Islamophobia crisis.

Also added to the list is Altra Firearms: a gun store that ran an ad declaring that it wouldn’t sell firearms to Clinton supporters or Muslims. Like Casa D’Ice, this is another case of the SPLC demonstrating that it has no idea what distinguishes a store whose owner says politically incorrect things from a “group”.

The list has added Bosch Fawstin: an artist who was the target of the first ISIS terror attack in America during the assault on the Draw Mohammed cartoon contest. The SPLC announced that it was adding the Eisner nominated artist to its list of hate groups after he survived the attack.

The SPLC’s actions were obscene.

After the attack, Heidi Beirich, in charge of adding targets to the SPLC’s hate map, announced that she would be adding Bosch to the list because the Center now knows his location.

Indeed the SPLC makes a point of highlighting the locations of likely terrorist targets. And the Southern Poverty Law Center’s map of hate has been used by terrorists before.

Floyd Lee Corkins opened fire at the headquarters of the Family Research Council. The conservative Christian organization had been targeted by Corkins because of its appearance on the SPLC’s list.

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups. I found them online,” Corkins later confessed to the FBI.

When Leo Johnson, the building’s African-American manager, attempted to stop Corkins, the SPLC shooter told Johnson that he didn’t like his politics and opened fire. The SPLC gunman had planned to kill everyone in the office, but Johnson’s heroic actions saved their lives. The African-American building manager was forced to undergo painful surgeries because of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list.

Despite its role in the terror attack, the SPLC continues to target the Family Research Council.

None of the so-called “Anti-Muslim hate groups” listed by the SPLC have shot anyone. The SPLC has.

Bosch Fawstin is a courageous activist. He’s also an individual. As am I. And the SPLC also has me up as a hate group. Other individual bloggers on the list include Atlas Shrugs, Refugee Resettlement Watch, Bare Naked Islam and Citizen Warrior.

6 of the SPLC’s “hate groups” are actually individuals. It’s understandable that the Southern Poverty Law Center is vague on the definition of hate. But you would think that it could figure out the definition of “group.”

No such luck.

The SPLC lists the David Horowitz Freedom Center as a hate group. But then again it also lists the American College of Pediatricians and the Jewish Political Action Committee as hate groups.

It doesn’t take much to be listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

You don’t need to be a group to be listed by the SPLC as a hate group. You don’t even need to have a pulse. Inanimate plastic signs can be listed too.

The rest of the SPLC’s “increase” is padded out with assorted community groups opposed to refugee resettlement, such as Treasure Valley Refugee Watch, and any Christian ministry it doesn’t like.

But there is one barrier to being listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

No amount of overt anti-Semitism from CAIR’s Nihad Awad would ever get the Islamist hate group listed as a hate group. Even CAIR’s flirtation with Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers can’t get it on the hate map. The SPLC collaborated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council despite its anti-Semitism.

Instead the SPLC lists counterterrorism organizations such as the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Clarion Project and the David Horowitz Freedom Center which point out their terror ties as hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is greedy, cynical and dishonest. Its latest ploy to gain headlines by inflating a group it had formerly listed as 1 organization into 45 by listing each chapter separately is the sort of behavior you expect from a lazy college student, not one of the wealthiest organizations in the country. And yet no one in the media will call out the SPLC for its greed, its bigotry and its lies.

The SPLC climbs into bed with extremists and terrorists and it smears counterterrorism organizations. It helps terrorists target their critics. And it solicits money through shameless lies.

It’s easy to indict the SPLC. But every indictment of the SPLC is also an indictment of a Fake News media that repeats its absurd lies without ever checking its facts.

When the media reports that there was a huge rise in anti-Muslim groups because the Southern Poverty Law Center turned 1 group into 45, it proves that it really is in the Fake News business.

Israeli Ambassador to USA Slams SPLC for “Practicing Intolerance”

derm

Ambassador Ron Dermer said that the Southern Poverty Law Center claims to defend tolerance for those who “look different,” but works to suppress those who “think different.”

CounterJihad, December 16, 2016:

While accepting an award for defending freedom Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, gave a rousing speech centered on the importance of a vigorous debate especially on the touchy matter of politicized Islam.  At the same time he charged the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has come under substantial criticism for recklessly painting even noted Muslim reformers as “extremists,” with trying to stifle this debate.  The SPLC, Dermer said, had asked him not to come and accept the award.  “The SPLC and others who asked me not to come here tonight claim to support free and open debate,” he said. “But in reality, they seem to want to stifle debate. They preach tolerance for those who look different. But they are in effect practicing intolerance to those who think different.”

“Unfortunately,” he added, “some have amended that famous Voltairian dictum to be “I hate what you say and I will never defend your right to say it.  I will defame you as an extremist. I will label you a racist and a bigot. I will put you on the blackest of lists that should be reserved for Nazis, for the Klan, and for the true enemies of mankind.”

This stifling of debate is dangerous, he suggested, because it cripples our ability to think carefully about one of the great dangers to Western political liberty.  He spoke specifically about the harm done to Muslim reformers by these attempts to silence debate.

[M]y point is that Islam, like other faiths, has evolved – and I see no reason why it cannot or will not evolve again.  So do not assume that the forces ascendant in the Muslim world today will be the same forces ascendant in the future.  Whether that happens or not will mostly depend on changes that will come from within the Muslim world. But the pace and extent of those changes depends partly on us as well.  It depends on not painting all Muslims with a single brush and not declaring nearly one-quarter of the world’s population irredeemable.  It depends on recognizing that the greatest victims of militant Islam are those Muslims who do not accept its unforgiving creed.  And it depends on helping those who seek to reform Islam from within.

Let me read you the words of one of those reformers.

“I’m really offended when people are intimidated, terrified and killed under the pretext that such practices are part and parcel of divine teaching ordered by God.  I feel offended when destruction and sabotage are promoted as a heavenly triumph for God on earth. I swear that nothing could ever be built on destruction, demolition or murder.”

Those words were not scrawled by a dissident languishing away in some dungeon in the Middle East. Those words were spoken last week at a religious university by Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. the President of Egypt.

And here is another voice from the Middle East commenting about terror attacks perpetrated in the name of Islam

“Their only link to Islam is the pretexts they use to justify their crimes and their folly. They have strayed from the right path, and their fate is to dwell forever in hell…They think – out of ignorance – that they are engaging in Jihad…Is it conceivable that God…could order someone to blow himself up or kill innocent people? Islam, as a matter of fact, does not permit any kind of suicide – whatever the reasons or the circumstances.”

[Those words] were delivered three months ago in Arabic in a televised speech by Mohammed VI, the King of Morocco.

Dermer went on to challenge the audience to recognize the importance of such words by the leaders of Muslim nations, while not assuming that this meant that the challenge of militant political Islam would fade on its own.  Proposing an analogy to baseball, but also citing Osama bin Laden’s doctrine about “the strong horse,” Dermer said that winning teams attract more recruits.  Making sure that militant Islamists continue to lose is therefore an important part of the struggle.

The SPLC responded by suggesting that Dermer was merely trying to draw attention away from the fact that he had accepted an award from a group on their black list.  That he accepted the award, the Freedom Flame award, was something Dermer made much of in his speech.  He described the award as “prestigious,” and thanked the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney — also on the SPLC’s list of extremists — for a lifetime of work built around an “unwavering commitment to freedom – for America, for Europe, for Israel, for everyone.”

In addition to the criticism of the SPLC’s list of “extremists” in its recent black list, the SPLC has had to apologize for overreach in this matter before.  It made one such apology when it withdrew its criticism of Dr. Ben Carson, currently described by Scientific American as “just what the doctor ordered” as nominee for Housing and Urban Development.  In addition, the SPLC has been accused of its own extremist ties on the political left.

Report buried Trump-related ‘hate crimes’ against white kids

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: Getty Images

At least 2,000 educators around the country reported racist slurs and other derogatory language leveled against white students in the first days after Donald Trump was elected president. But the group that surveyed the teachers didn’t publish the results in its report on Trump-related “hate crimes.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center partnered with the American Federation of Teachers, which formally endorsed Hillary Clinton, to circulate the questionnaire among its 1.6 million mostly Democratic members. The survey was sent out to K-12 teachers and administrators who subscribe to its “Teaching Tolerance” newsletter.

The SPLC’s widely cited report — “The Trump Effect: The Impact of the 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation’s Schools” — reported that 40 percent of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey “have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation.”

The takeaway was that Trump-supporting white kids have been harassing minorities at the nation’s schools. And SPLC’s schools report, along with a broader report on alleged Trump-inspired hate crimes — “Ten Days After: Harassment and Intimidation in the Aftermath of the Election” — sparked breathless coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and other major media.

The reports also triggered a statement Friday from the US Commission on Civil Rights, which expressed “deep concern” that “prejudice has reared its ugly head in public elementary and secondary schools.” The panel called for more federal funding to prosecute “hate crimes.”

But the SPLC didn’t present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit self-censored results from a key question it asked educators — whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.”

Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information “from the researchers.” Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”

Bokenkamp did not provide an explanation for the absence of such a substantial metric — at least 2,000 bias-related incidents against white students — from the report, which focuses instead on “anti-immigrant sentiment,” “anti-Muslim sentiment” and “slurs about students of color” related to the election.

“They left that result out because it would not fit their ideological narrative,” former Education Department civil rights attorney Hans Bader said. “It was deemed an inconvenient truth.”

Founded in 1971, SPLC claims to be a nonpartisan civil rights law firm. But it receives funding from leftist groups, including ones controlled by billionaire George Soros. And a review of Federal Election Commission records reveals that its board members have contributed more than $13,400 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns.

Bader says SPLC has an agenda to derail the Trump administration before it starts.

“These flawed SPLC reports will be cited by left-wing special interests to try to block the confirmation of moderate and conservative people to posts such as attorney general by falsely making it look like America’s schools and streets are pervaded by bigotry,” Bader said.

Last week, SPLC held a press conference in Washington to demand Trump “reconsider” his picks for White House advisers and attorney general, and “disavow” his immigration policies.

Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law CenterPhoto: Getty Images

Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law CenterPhoto: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, December 5, 2016

“His own words have sparked the barrage of hate that we are seeing,” SPLC President Richard Cohen maintained. “He has been singing the white supremacist song since he came down the escalator in his tower and announced his candidacy.”

Cohen tied Trump to a number of hate crimes, which he warns will only “spike” once he’s inaugurated. He noted his center recorded 867 alleged anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-black hate crimes in the 10 days following Trump’s Nov. 8 win.

But the SPLC acknowledges that it has not independently verified any of the claims. It collected most of them on its website, many anonymously.

The group won’t use its $315 million in assets to investigate the “hate crimes,” or at least help alleged victims file police reports or provide them counseling or other assistance, but it has offered “sympathy.”

“We wrote back to every submission that provided an email address to express sympathy and encourage them to report the incident to local authorities,” Bokenkamp said.

Bader pointed out that most of the anti-minority “hate crimes” and “hate incidents” cited by SPLC do not legally constitute hate crimes, and many involve constitutionally protected speech.

“It is simply ridiculous that SPLC treats ‘build the wall’ as hate rhetoric,” he said. The center counted people mentioning “build the wall” as 467 incidents of hate.

“Alas, these days the SPLC is mainly a fundraising machine,” said Gail Heriot, a US Commission on Civil Rights member who voted against Friday’s resolution. “The more it can persuade its donors that hate groups have penetrated every nook and cranny of American society, the more money it can raise. Now it wants us to believe that the election has unleashed unprecedented waves of hatred and violence among schoolchildren. Let’s stop and take a deep breath before we assume that’s true. The SPLC has no credibility with anyone — on the left or the right — who is familiar with its methods.”

While there no doubt are legitimate reports of hate crimes against minorities — and even one is too many — hyping such incidents recklessly fans the flames of anxiety among such communities. And suppressing reports of crimes against Trump supporters gives a one-sided and misleading view of post-election discord.

Paul Sperry is a former Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and the author of “Infiltration.”

SPLC Calls on Trump to Denounce ‘Racism and Bigotry’

as000016517-300Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, November 28, 2016:

The hard-Left money-making, propaganda and incitement machine known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is planning to hold a press conference on Tuesday, “calling on president-elect Donald Trump to immediately and forcefully publicly denounce racism and bigotry and to call on Americans to stop all acts of hate.” Trump, the SPLC claims, has given rise to a sharp spike in hate crimes against Muslims – which would be terrible, if it weren’t fictional.

The FBI hate crimes statistics for 2015 are out, and the establishment propaganda media is using them to create the impression of some massive increase of Trump-inspired violent “Islamophobia” in America:

“FBI: Hate crimes spike, most sharply against Muslims” — CNN

“U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims” — New York Times

“FBI: Hate Crimes Against Muslims up by 67 Percent in 2015” — Associated Press

“FBI: Hate crimes against Muslims up by 67 percent in 2015” — CBS News

“FBI reports rise in hate crimes, with biggest spike against Muslims” — The Week

“FBI reports hate crimes against Muslims surged by 67% in 2015” — The Guardian

In reality, however, as in past years, anti-Semitic hate crimes are over two times more common than hate crimes against Muslims — yet get nothing close to the same media attention.

Also, this much-touted 67% increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes brings the total to 257. Every authentic hate crime is reprehensible and the perpetrators should be prosecuted, but 257 hate crimes in a year in a country of 318 million doesn’t really seem like the wave of “Islamophobic hate crime” of media myth. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are less than one in a million. That’s a fine demonstration of the decency of Americans — but that doesn’t interest the establishment media.

It is likewise important to know how the FBI compiles its statistics about “anti-Muslim hate crimes” – statistics that the SPLC is likely to cite on Tuesday. Does it remove incidents that turned out to have been faked by Muslims to further victimhood propaganda? The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques.

Last week a Muslim student at the University of Louisiana Lafayette garnered international headlines when she charged that Trump supporters had attacked her, robbed her, and tore off her and hijab. The only problem? She made up the story.

There are many such instances. A New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

The New York Daily News reported this one not long ago:

[A] woman who told cops she was called a terrorist and slashed on her cheek in lower Manhattan on Thursday later admitted she made up the story, police said early Friday. The woman, who wore a headscarf, told authorities a blade-wielding wacko sliced open her face as she left a Manhattan cosmetology school, police sources said.

Recently in Britain, the murder of a popular imam was spread far and wide as another “Islamophobic hate crime” — until his killer also was found to be a Muslim. And why had another Muslim murdered him? The Mirror reported that the imam “was targeted because he had made efforts to turn youngsters away from radical Islam.”

There is much, much more in this vein. According to The Detroit News, a Muslim woman, Saida Chatti, cooked up this one:

[Chatti was] charged with making a false police report after she allegedly fabricated a plot to blow up Dearborn Fordson High School to retaliate against the November terrorist attacks in Paris … Police say Chatti called Dearborn investigators Nov. 19, six days after Islamic extremists killed 130 people in Paris.

And similarly in Britain:

[A Muslim woman was] fined for lying to police about being attacked for wearing a hijab. The 18-year-old student, known only as Miss Choudhury, said she was violently shoved from behind and punched in the face by a man in Birmingham city centre 10 days after the atrocities in the French capital on November 13.

In light of all this, it is entirely reasonable to be suspicious of the claims of Muslim activist Rashid Dar, who claimed in late September that he was punched in the throat while walking in Washington, D.C., dressed in traditional Islamic attire. What a coincidence! Of all the many, many people wearing traditional Muslim attire in Washington, the one that this violent Islamophobe decided to punch randomly in the throat was a longtime Muslim activist, an employee of the pro-Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar-funded Brookings Institution, previously active at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with the Muslim Students Association, a Muslim Brotherhood organization.

This is the atmosphere of deception in which the SPLC’s press conference will take place Tuesday. In today’s politically correct environment, hate crimes are political capital. They foster the impression that resistance to Islamic terrorism equals hatred of Muslims, and results in the victimization of innocent people. The SPLC and Hamas-linked CAIR want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims. That’s the ultimate message of the SPLC’s press conference: want power and influence? Be a victim!

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Also see:

SPLC moves to kill debate on ‘refugee’ resettlement

Syrian refugees (Photo: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

Syrian refugees (Photo: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

WND, by Leo Hohmann, November 27, 2016:

It doesn’t take much to get one’s self branded a racist in Michigan these days.

Donald Trump pulled off an upset win in the state that has gone Democrat in the previous two presidential elections, but that hasn’t stopped the entrenched establishment from demonizing those who hold Trump-like views on immigration.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is teaming up with local Detroit media to paint a Maryland-based journalist as an anti-Muslim “extremist” and “Islamophobe” simply because he has produced fact-based research on the U.S. government’s refugee resettlement program.

James Simpson has been invited to speak at the annual Business Roundtable Breakfast in Oakland County, one of several counties in Michigan that have been pummeled with refugees from the Middle East over the last eight years of the Obama administration.

Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, who won re-election in a landslide on Nov. 8, has been a vocal critic of the refugee program, threatening to sue the administration for violating the Refugee Act of 1980. Under Obama, the feds have distributed thousands of refugees into Oakland County without advance notice to Patterson and other local government officials. Once the federal month that follows the refugees runs out, Oakland County taxpayers are left holding the bag for the education and welfare of the refugees.

But the SPLC’s attack stance has now frightened away one of the Roundtable event’s main sponsors, the Fifth Third Bank.

SPLC is the same organization that tried to label former GOP presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson an “extremist” only to remove the post from its website and apologize after an intense nationwide backlash in 2015. The SPLC website still includes a negative “file” on Carson maintaining he has said things that “most people would conclude are extreme,” citing as the main example Dr. Carson’s belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But the newest source of the media-made controversy in Michigan is Simpson, author of the 2015 book “The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.”

Simpson has been invited by Patterson to speak at the annual economic forum on Dec. 1. Simpson is a research fellow at Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The SPLC was used as the source of the negative stories about Simpson that appeared in the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit Metro Times.

Simpson’s book, published by Center for Security Policy, exposes both secular and church groups working as paid government resettlement contractors and provides data on the costs of the resettlement program. Oakland County, along with Wayne and Macomb counties, has been on the receiving end more than 7,000 Muslim refugees from Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Bosnia and elsewhere over the past 20 years. The Islamization has been so intense that many local opponents have started referring to Dearborn as “Dearbornistan” and Hamtramck as “Shariahville.”

Patterson issued the following statement to WND:

“Mr. Simpson was invited to speak at the Oakland County Business Roundtable precisely because he is provocative. It’s not about whether one agrees with him, but it’s about stimulating meaningful conversation on a timely and important topic in our country. It would be rather Orwellian to exclude him. After all, this is still the United States of America where the First Amendment protects even the most contentious speech.”

Pamela Geller, author of “Stop the Islamization of America” and president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, said that if Simpson had authored a leftist propaganda book the Fifth Third Bank would have had no problem with it.

“James Simpson is author of ‘The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.’ That’s why the bank withdrew its sponsorship,” Geller told WND. “If a hard-left speaker had been invited, the bank would have had no problem. But those who speak the truth on the right are increasingly ostracized, demonized, and marginalized. The bank is justifiably afraid that leftist thugs will target it for protests, boycotts, etc. But it should stand up to these fascists instead of caving in to them.”

‘Doubling down’ against free speech

And it’s not just in Michigan where this is happening. Anyone armed with facts that refute the talking points of the government and its resettlement contractors is immediately branded a racist, said Ann Corcoran, who blogs for the website Refugee Resettlement Watch.

“They’re going after the only county executive who’s willing to take a stand, and he’s right next door to the other county executive in Macomb County who’s all in for more refugees,” Corcoran said. “Even with the new president-elect they are bearing down, doubling down, in their effort to crack down on free speech.”

Simpson said he will appear on Detroit radio host Frank Beckman’s show Monday at 9:45 a.m. to discuss the attacks against him in the local media. Beckmann typically hosts listener call-in comments after his interviews.

Simpson has often called the refugee resettlement program a scam that hides under the guise of humanitarian goodness when in actuality it’s about making money and changing political demographics in favor of Democrats and socialists. When someone dares challenge their talking points, the resettlement advocates often respond with Saul Alinsky tactics of dehumanizing their opponent, rather than engage them in a civil debate, he said.

“What we’re dealing with are faux, self-righteous indignation and really they [at Fifth Third Bank] don’t have the guts to stand up to these people who use vicious tactics, and we need to be stronger than that now,” Simpson told WND.

He said the left’s “guerrilla warfare” against Trump, the election and anyone associated with this nation’s rejection of their agenda, continues unabated.

“Of course, Ann Corcoran, the Center for Security Policy and I are all irredeemable deplorables for our stance against open borders and the Islamization of America,” he said.

‘Psychological terror’ tactics

Simpson said the time for political correctness has passed.

“The election was a referendum on these sanctimonious, dishonest, fraudulent attacks. It’s a form of psychological terror not only to intimidate us, but to make it radioactive and intimidate others who might be following in our example and wish to speak out,” he said. “They want to destroy anybody they don’t’ agree with, and it’s especially despicable when we are in the majority view now.”

Simpson said a virtual cottage industry has grown up in America that feeds off of destroying people’s reputations.

“It’s a franchise, that’s all it is,” he said. “It’s a franchise of people who don’t know how to do anything productive or that is of any value to anyone so instead they use political manipulation and psychological terrorism against those of us who they don’t agree with.”

Simpson said the Detroit Metro Times article, which called him an “extremist Islamophobe,” was particularly vicious.

“The election was a referendum on that kind of baseless ad hominem attack, and they were essentially proving the point for me,” he said.

Obama DOJ threatens communities that oppose mosques

Sterling Heights is one of the cities in the sights of the federal government’s effort to transform Southeastern Michigan into a model of multicultural “diversity,” where all cultures are seen as equal, and some perhaps more equal than others.

Muslim expansion is spilling over into Sterling Heights from nearby Detroit, Troy and Hamtramck, which last year became the first U.S. city to elect a Muslim-majority city council. Seeing what happened in Hamtramck, with calls to prayer blasted over loudspeakers and storefronts changed from Polish markets to a mixture of halal and spirit-less restaurants, the people of Sterling Heights pressured their planning commission to deny a major mosque project in the middle of a residential area. The commission voted 9-0 in September 2015 to deny the project citing traffic, parking and other zoning issues but the Obama Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation and the Council on American-Islamic Relations has sued the city claiming the Islamic group’s rights were violated.

Another mosque and Islamic school proposed in Pittsfield Township near Ann Arbor, Michigan, faced the same legal onslaught – a lawsuit by CAIR and the Obama DOJ – and settled out of court last month for $1.7 million. The imam of the Ann Arbor mosque is a known radical who was investigated for ties to the 9/11 terrorists but that didn’t stop Obama from rushing to defend his “civil rights.”

As Geller has often stated, civil rights to the Obama administration include the right to preach hate and violence against Jews and Christians, even as the administration seeks to crack down on speech critical of Islam.

It’s against this backdrop that Oakland County’s Patterson is fighting back.

Dick Manasseri, spokesman for Secure Michigan, said his group has submitted a letter to the Free Press’s op-ed page based on the First Amendment rights of all Michiganders to speak out.

“It’s just as a statement in support of freedom of speech, even though we do have Shariahvilles in Michigan we don’t live under the Shariah in Michigan, we have a right to express ourselves, and James Simpson is just presenting information,” Manasseri told WND.

“This is standard protocol for them, they do it all the time, and they’re given credence by the mainstream media, which is pretty low,” said Manasseri. “We’ve experienced this before.”

In January after the jihadist attacks on Paris, one Michigan state senator, Morris Hood II, said Manasseri and anyone who supported Gov. Rich Snyder’s call for a halt on Syrian refugees were “racist.”

“We went to Lansing and presented six minutes of data on refugees, no commentary, just data, and the refugee industry was represented by CAIR, the Catholic Church, the Jewish and Lutheran Church. And the Democratic leader called the senator proposing the resolution and by reference anyone who supported it a racist because we questioned the fact that they couldn’t be vetted,” he said. “This is the way it works in Michigan. This goes on all the time, this type of intimidation by the refugee industry in cahoots with the left.”

Manasseri said Oakland County has been getting about 500 refugees a month, with about 200 of those coming from Syria.

“And we at Secure Michigan would love to see an injunction from the courts, given that we are likely to see a policy change from the Trump administration, and we have the refugee industry bearing down on people who present information. Simpson has done his homework, he has researched the costs, the national security issues, and the secrecy of the program.”

He said the Oakland County health director has never been notified ahead of time of how many refugees are coming into the county.

“That’s major, so people are not following the law,” he said. “So the position of the county is clear, legal immigration, legal refuges, no problem. It’s in the Refugee Act of 1980 that the federal government must consult the local county and ORR has placed hundreds in this county without that consultation having taken place.”

He said Secure Michigan would be happy if the law was followed and the county would get advance notice of who is coming, how they’ve been vetted, and the state of their health conditions.

“There have been no meetings to this effect. Going from June to now there have been two quarterly meetings and the county still does not have any knowledge of refugees being placed in the county,” he said. And what an outrage, they invited a national expert on the issue, I would say that’s leadership rather than the slurs being used.

“The meeting is Dec. 1, in a major hotel, and as far as we know the only official group to drop out is the Fifth Third Bank,” said  Manasseri.

He said the Detroit Free Press, one of the newspapers running a negative piece against Simpson citing the opinion of the SPLC that he is an “extremist,” has refused to publish his letter to the editor presenting an opposing perspective.

“We’re just trying to get people focused on the issues” he said. “Why would the Free Press print an article and then not publish op-eds on the issue? It would seem on an issue as hot as this when we have a new president who has voiced concerns about this, that it would be something that would sit in an inbox for three or four days.”

Bill Mullan, spokesperson for Patterson, said Oakland County is a “global community” that welcomes international business and is home to more than 1,050 foreign-owned companies from 39 countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and South America.

“We celebrate legal immigrants. We even open our doors to refugees from anywhere in the world as long as they have been properly vetted and screened for homeland security and public health concerns,” Mullan said.

He added that Patterson understand the scope of the Syrian refugee crisis.

“We support refugee resettlement that complies with the Refugee Act of 1980.

“But Federal law mandates that the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement “must consult and coordinate refugee resettlement with state and local governments,” he added. “The ORR has already placed hundreds of refugees in Oakland County without that consultation and coordination taking place. Why is that a concern? The Islamic State has said it is seeding these waves of refugees with its own agents and terrorists. Plus, there have been a number of cases of refugees arriving with communicable diseases, with at least one in Oakland County.

“The Oakland County Executive bears the responsibility of protecting the safety, security, and health of all residents. Please join us in supporting refugee resettlement that complies with the Refugee Act of 1980.”

***

This is what it looks like in Dearborn. (H/T Dave Bailey)

Also see:

You can pre-order “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and the Resettlement Jihad” coming out January 24 by Leo Hohmann at Amazon.

Gaffney: The ‘Big Lie’ Is Back

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, November 22, 2016:

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

At the time, she had in mind specifically perpetrators of what the OIC, the Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamic supremacists and their enablers on the Left call “defamation of Islam.” But the same playbook – in the tradition of Mrs. Clinton’s mentor, Saul Alinsky – is now being followed with a vengeance against what is abhorred by the cabal best described as the Red-Green Axis.

Much in evidence among such “old-fashioned techniques” now being employed is what’s known as “the Big Lie.” It entails the endless repetition of outrageous falsehoods to defame, and ultimately silence, one’s political opponents.

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, here, here and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, here, here, here and here).

I am hardly alone in being diagnosed by such charlatans with the made-up condition of “Islamophobia.” Indeed, I am proud to be included in the company of men and women being pilloried for what Islamic supremacists and their enablers would have us believe is “defamation of Islam.” In fact, it is simply informed, astute and courageous truth-telling about the global jihad movement and threat it poses. Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions and Mike Flynn are under assault for doing the same in this and other contexts.

It seems that critics are particularly unhinged by the clarity of these three men and the president they will serve about the fact that Islamic supremacism is not simply a menace overseas. The Red-Green types are determined to prevent Donald Trump from operationalizing the plan of action he described in a major address on the topic on August 15, 2016. Among its highlights are the following:

Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam. All actions should be oriented around this goal….Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam….

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country….

Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country. To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one. Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home. (Emphasis added)

In short, the Red-Green Axis is having conniptions because the American people have now chosen to lead them a president and an administration that will not just be sensible about this threat. It is also determined to do the job Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their minions have adamantly shirked: protecting us against, rather than accommodating, Sharia. So the Big Lie and “other techniques of shaming and peer pressure” are now being applied with abandon to outstanding public servants in the hope of reducing their effectiveness and that of the presidency they will serve.

The transparent falsity and political agenda being served by such lies should, instead, discredit their perpetrators. For that to happen, however, the so-called “mainstream press” will have to stop lionizing the Big Liars and uncritically promoting their handiwork.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. He is President of the Center for Security Policy.

Selective Outrage Over SPLC’s ‘Anti-Muslim Extremist List’

mn-2

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, October 31, 2016:

Sam Harris thinks it’s “unbelievable” that Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali made it to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hit list of “Anti-Muslim Extremists.” He said nothing about me or the other people whom the SPLC included, which is not surprising, since he has quite recently expressed willingness to acquiesce in other contexts to the demonization that the SPLC list exemplifies.

Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist blog ably sums up the outrage over Nawaz and Hirsi Ali being included: “If criticizing religious beliefs makes them extremists, then it won’t be long before other vocal atheists end up on that list too. And make no mistake, that’s what Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are doing. That’s all they’re doing. They’re not anti-Muslim; they work with moderate Muslims. They’re critical of the worst aspects of Islam.”

The problem with being angry about Nawaz and Hirsi Ali being on the SPLC list, but silent about everyone else who is on it, is that what Mehta says about Nawaz and Hirsi Ali can quite accurately said about everyone else on the list. If criticizing religious beliefs makes them “extremists,” then it won’t be long before everyone who dares to utter a critical word about Islam will be on the list — and that is indeed the objective of the list: to stigmatize and marginalize any and all such critics. Mehta protests that Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are “not anti-Muslim; they work with moderate Muslims. They’re critical of the worst aspects of Islam.”

But no one would think that the other 13 were “anti-Muslim” if it hadn’t been for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and their allied groups insisting that we were all these years, in their avidity to conflate opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression with hating a group of people — a tactic designed to discredit opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression. Mehta and co. are falling for and validating the same smear tactics hey are decrying when used against their friends.

And as for working with moderate Muslims, for 13 years Jihad Watch has contained this invitation: “Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts.” It is Nawaz (as well as other moderates) who has attacked me, in what appears to have been a cynical attempt to gain support for himself among Muslims; I never attacked him, and would have have been happy to work with him otherwise.

In complaining that Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are merely “criticizing religious beliefs” and are “not anti-Muslim,” Mehta is strongly implying that the others on the SPLC list are doing something beyond “criticizing religious beliefs” and are indeed “anti-Muslim.” On Twitter the last couple of days I’ve seen many people express outrage that Nawaz has been lumped in with the likes of Spencer; but when I ask them what the big difference is between us, or for quotes from me that are actually “bigoted,” they go silent.

Mehta, Harris, Haider and the others who are only angry with the SPLC’s hit list because it included Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are, by their selective outrage, acquiescing to and legitimizing the SPLC’s demonization of the other people on the list. (In his own defense, Hemant Mehta wrote me to explain, somewhat unsatisfactorily: “I focused on those two because they’re well known in atheist circles.”) This is a self-defeating choice for them to have made, for the SPLC has never identified anyone whom it considers to be a legitimate critic of Islam, and never will: the point of lists such as the one they released yesterday is to demonize and silence everyone who dares say something about Islam that is not warmly positive.

The turn of Mehta, Harris, and Haider will come for the same treatment. One wonders if, when this happens, there will be anyone left to speak for them who has not already been smeared as “anti-Muslim,” with their tacit approval.

Also see:

The New Anti-Racist Racists

Gatestone Institute, by Douglas Murray, October 28, 2016:

  • There is a trait campaigning groups have that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more.
  • Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons.
  • One got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism, and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.
  • Here is this “anti-racist” organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a black immigrant woman. At the top of any list of “hate-groups,” the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.
  • The SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim activists” also includes a practising Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC), based in Montgomery, Alabama, has struck again. The self-appointed boundary-markers and policemen of free discussion have issued what they call a “Field Guide” to help “guide” the media in “countering prominent anti-Muslim extremists.” It is hard to know where to start with such idiocy, so let us start from the beginning.

The SPLC was founded in 1971, ostensibly to fight for civil rights among other good causes. By the end of its first decade it was targeting the KKK and other racist organisations. So far so good. But like many a campaigning organisation, they experienced the happy blow of basically winning their argument. By the 1990s, there were mercifully few racist groups in America going about unchallenged. When a member of the KKK cropped up everybody in civil society pretty much understood that here was a bad person who should not be given a free pass.

But there is an odd trait in campaigning groups that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Why is this so? Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more. Campaigning for a particular thing or against a particular thing has become their way of life and their means of earning. And so they find a way to continue. For some years, the SPLC staggered around in such a manner, as pointless and purposeless an organisation as could be imagined.

And then in the last decade something happened to this increasingly obscure institution. It is not for me to speculate why or how this happened, whether it had to do with new staff or new money, but the focus of the organisation changed. Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. They did not spy it in people who flew planes into skyscrapers, decapitated American journalists and aid workers or blew up the finish line of marathons. No, the SPLC saw it somewhere else. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons. For the SPLC, the big threat on the horizon was not Islamists but those people who objected to Islamists — that is, people they called “Islamophobes.” In the same way, they did not seem to have any particular problem with jihad, but they developed a huge problem with people they called “counter-jihadists.” To their existing lists of designated “hate-groups” they now added such people.

More honest groups might have balked at such a stance. More informed groups would have walked a thousand miles from such a stance. But the SPLC did no such thing. In fact, one got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.

The media today in America are increasingly wary of Islamic extremists. Most journalists do not want the parameters of what should be discussed dictated by Islamic fanatics. Whereas an organisation such as the SPLC, which did something good forty years ago, is the sort of institution that the media is for the time-being happy to hear from. Perhaps after this latest development that will no longer be the case.

The SPLC’s latest production is disgraceful, discrediting and sloppy even by its own increasingly disgraceful, discredited and sloppy standards. For this publication, they have listed “Fifteen anti-Muslim activists,” most likely in the hope that they will scare the media off inviting them on, or the wider public from being allowed to listen to them.

Among the list is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC lists a set of allegedly outrageous things that she has said, which have appeared in such obscure and extreme venues as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. They mention in passing — as though it were an incidental mishap — that Hirsi Ali’s film-making partner, Theo van Gogh, was slaughtered on an Amsterdam street by a jihadist, with a death-threat to Hirsi Ali pinned into van Gogh’s dying body. But they still clearly cannot imagine why anybody would have a problem with such a thing. One wonders how the staff of the SPLC would feel if one of their colleagues was murdered in such a manner? Doubtless they would shrug it off. Yet it remains that case that here is this “anti-racist” organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking a black immigrant woman.

Hirsi Ali is of course well known for being an ex-Muslim. But the SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim activists” also includes a practising Muslim. Of course, if Maajid Nawaz were an Islamic extremist then SPLC would have nothing to say about him. But Maajid Nawaz is not an extremist — he is one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself. If the jihadists within Islam are ever going to be defeated, it will be because of Muslims like Nawaz, who are willing to argue for reform on liberal, progressive, pluralistic and democratic grounds.

Yet for the SPLC, this Muslim is not just not the right type of Muslim — he is “anti-Muslim.” The charges that SPLC levels against Nawaz are (this is not satire) that he has (a) co-operated with, rather than worked against, the British police (b) suggested that customers in banks should have to show their faces (c) once failed to abide by the most hardline interpretation of Islamic blasphemy law (d) once visited a strip club on his stag-night.

The Southern Poverty Law Center decided to turn itself into a racist organization, with its attacks on principled and courageous critics of radical Islamism such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (left), a prominent ex-Muslim writer, and Maajid Nawaz (right), a moderate practising Muslim writer, radio host and politician. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

Who knows what lapses in personal decorum have occurred among the staff of the SPLC? Perhaps one of them once had extra-marital intercourse? Or perhaps one of them once consumed a glass of Merlot, in contravention of the hardest-line interpretations of Islamic scripture? Who knows, but who the hell would anybody else be to judge, and who the hell do the SPLC think they are? It seems that the SPLC has decided to turn itself from an anti-racist organisation into a racist one. An organisation that used to prosecute white racists has ended up attacking black and Muslim immigrants. At the top of any list of “hate-groups,” the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.

Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England.

Also see:

In libelous new “report,” SPLC equates foes of jihad terror with those who commit jihad massacres

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, October 27, 2016:

The objective of this libelous new report from the hard-Left money-making and incitement machine the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is made plain within it: “Before you book a spokesperson from an anti-Muslim extremist group or quote them in a story, research their background — detailed in this in-depth guide to 15 of the most visible anti-Muslim activists— and consider the consequences of giving them a platform.” They wish to silence those who speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, blaming us for a supposed rise in “Islamophobia.” If they really want to stamp out suspicion of Islam, of course, they will move against not us, but the likes of Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Nidal Malik Hasan, Mohammed Abdulazeez, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the myriad other Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam and justify it by reference to Islamic teachings.

The SPLC doesn’t do that because its objective is not really to stop “Islamophobia” at all, but to create the illusion of a powerful and moneyed network of “Islamophobes,” who can only be stopped if you write a check to the SPLC. That’s what this is really all about. In constructing this illusory edifice, the SPLC labels me and fourteen others “anti-Muslim extremists.” We are, of course, no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were anti-German, but note the word “extremists.” That’s the mainstream media and Obama administration’s term of choice for jihad terrorists. In what way are we “extremists”? Has anyone on the SPLC’s hit list (and given the SPLC’s track record of inciting violence against its targets, that is exactly what it is) ever blown anything or anyone up? Beheaded anyone? Boasted of our imminent conquest of any territory and the massacre of or enslavement of its people? No, all we have done is speak critically about jihad terror and Sharia oppression. The SPLC is trying to further the libel that we are the other side of the coin, the non-Muslim bin Ladens and Awlakis. Until we commit any terror attacks or conspire with others to do so, however, the SPLC’s libel is only that: a libel.

It’s also passingly ironic that the SPLC list includes several people who are doubtless horrified to be in this company, as they have endeavored for years to distinguish their message from that of those whom they themselves would smear as “Islamophobes.” But their temporizing and pandering didn’t work: they ended up on the Index of Prohibited Thinkers anyway, as will, ultimately, anyone who dares to note that Islam just might have something to do with the acts of murder committed in its name and in accord with its teachings.

The entry on me is accompanied by a nifty watercolor, but otherwise has little to recommend it, other than as an example of the Left’s strange tendency to present true statements as if they were self-evidently false, without bothering to explain why. Apparently the SPLC knows its supporters and is aware that it doesn’t need to bother with troublesome things like, you know, facts.

Nonetheless, I have replied in detail here so that the record, for anyone who is fair-minded, is clear. Much more below.

splc

“Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” SPLC, October 25, 2016:

Robert Spencer — Jihad Watch* // American Freedom Defense Initiative* // Stop Islamization of America*

robert-spencer

Robert Spencer is commonly referred to as one of the few real intellectuals in the anti-Muslim movement, and it is true that he is the author of more than a dozen books, two of which made the New York Times Best Seller List. But Spencer is entirely self-taught in the study of Islam,

An odd objection. One cannot be both “self-taught” and a “real intellectual”? In any case, it’s false: I am indeed mostly self-taught in the study of Islam, and make no secret of or apologies for it; every day’s headlines proves me correct. Nonetheless, the fact is that I did first read the Qur’an and began studying Islam in earnest while at the University of North Carolina, in courses taught by Professor Gordon Newby, author of A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, who was coming over from Duke to teach courses about Islam, and Professor David Halperin of UNC.

he has partnered with a woman known as one of the least reasoned enemies of Islam in the country, and he is given to the same kinds of extravagant, and often provably false, claims that characterize most Muslim-bashers.

“Provably false”? Really? Where? When? By whom? Certainly not by the SPLC, either in this hit piece or any other.

Spencer has complained of “Shariah enclaves” and predicted that they will grow across America;

Some news articles from just the past few weeks:

Sweden: Police admit losing control of 55 no-go zones

France: Police need extra protection when entering Muslim no-go zones

Germany: Police “sick” of citizens’ no-go zone fears

There are plenty more where those came from.

referred to Barack Obama as “the first Muslim president”;

This one epitomizes the dishonesty of the SPLC. The quote comes from an article I wrote in 2007 discussing how Obama was not a Muslim, stating that his obvious affinity for Islam and the Muslim world could make him into “our first Muslim president” the way Bill Clinton was called “our first black president.” After eight years of Obama, I’d say I was proven correct in rather spectacular fashion.

Read more

Lawmaker calls out Justice Department on far-left ally

Attorney General Loretta Lynch

Attorney General Loretta Lynch

WND, by Garth Kant, March 30, 2016:

WASHINGTON – The influential chairman of a committee that oversees the Justice Department is calling out U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the department’s support for, and reliance upon, a far-left group that targets non-violent groups and conservative organizations and accuses them of hate crimes.

WND obtained a copy of a letter sent last week by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., of the House Judiciary Committee to Lynch questioning her department’s support of the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, in which he asked:

“Given DOJ’s (Justice Department) public support for SPLC, does DOJ also support SPLC’s efforts to list non-violent groups that have no history of committing hate crimes on its hate map?”

To find out what prompted the letter, WND contacted a House Judiciary Comitttee aide, who explained:

“On an interactive ‘hate map’ maintained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, several mainstream conservative groups with no history of violence are being grouped with other organizations like the KKK that do have a history of violence.”

The aide also described just how the DOJ was supporting and using the SPLC:

“By attending events sponsored by SPLC and even listing the group as a resource in the past, DOJ has demonstrated that it has a working relationship with SPLC. The letter seeks to find out more information about DOJ’s position on SPLC’s hate map given that relationship.”

And what specifically triggered the letter?

“Organizations from around the country recently reached out to the House Judiciary Committee regarding this issue.”

(Links to a letter from those organizations, and the letter from Goodlatte to Lynch, are found at the end of this article.)

Examples of non-violent groups on the SPLC’s hate map are the Center for Security Policy, the Family Research Council and even WorldNetDaily, the original name for WND.com.

The SPLC went so far as to label former presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson an “extremist” for his traditional views on marriage, but the group was forced to apologize after coming under severe national criticism.

The letter to the Judiciary Committee was signed by members of the Center for Security Policy and the Family Research Council.

The Center for Security Policy, or CSP, was founded by former Pentagon and Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney, who was recently named to the foreign policy team of GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz, along with his colleague Clare Lopez, an Iran expert and 20-year CIA veteran.

The SPLC called the CSP, ” a conspiracy-oriented mouthpiece for the growing anti-Muslim movement in the United States” for warning about the Islamic fundamentalist nature of CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, and their growing influence on the Obama administration.

The Family Research Council, or FRC, is run by ordained minister and former Senate candidate Tony Perkins and Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin, former commander of the US Army’s Delta Force and Green Berets.

The FRC mission says, “Our vision is a culture in which human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives.” The SPLC claims “its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians” because of its support for traditional marriage.

SPLC seems to have a special animus for WND, calling it “devoted to manipulative fear-mongering and outright fabrications designed to further the paranoid, gay-hating, conspiratorial and apocalyptic visions of (WND CEO Joseph) Farah and his hand-picked contributors from the fringes of the far-right and fundamentalist worlds.”

The FRC has a particularly powerful reason to claim is has been dangerously maligned by the SPLC.

That’s because the SPLC’s targeting of the FRC as a hate group almost had deadly consequences.

As WND has detailed, on Aug. 15, 2012, heavily armed homosexual activist Floyd Corkins walked into FRC headquarters in Washington, D.C., and began shooting with the intention of killing “as many people as I could.”

He managed to shoot and injure just one person, facilities manager Leo Johnson, who is credited with heroically stopping the attack.

Corkins, a former volunteer at an LGBT community center, pleaded guilty to domestic terrorism and was sentenced in 2013 by a federal judge to 25 years in prison for attempting a mass shooting.

Corkins admitted he picked FRC because he spotted the organization as listed as an “anti-gay” hate group by the SPLC on its website and its “hate map.”

Asked how he picked the FRC to attack, Corkins stated, “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

On this video, Corkins tells the FBI how the SPLC website inspired him to attack the FRC:

The FBI interview with Corkins included this exchange:

FBI: “What was your intention … You’re … a political activist you said?”

Corkins: “Yeah, I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chicken-fil-A sandwich on their face.”

FBI: “And you, what was your intention when you went in there with the gun?”

Corkins: “Uh, it was to kill as many people as I could.”

At the time of the shooting, Chick-fil-A was in the headlines because of its president’s support for traditional marriage.

The SPLC still lists the FRC as a hate group on its “hate map.”

Boykin, who is FRC executive vice president and a member of the board of WND.com, wants the U.S. government and its agencies to stop working with SPLC and stop citing its work.

At the time of the Corkins sentencing, the general called the map capricious and noted it had no definition of a hate group.

“More importantly, we think what they’re doing is absolutely reckless, particularly given they put us in the same category as groups like the Klu Klux Klan and the skinheads.”

Pressure has to be put on the SPLC to stop this, because, Boykin said, “It is reckless behavior that has, at least in this case, incited someone to want to kill people who don’t believe what they believe and stand for.”

In his letter to Lynch last week, Goodlatte cited the FRC shooting, then wrote, “Nevertheless, the Department of Justice continues to support SPLC’s mission of tracking ‘hate.’”

The FBI was forced to drop the SPLC as a “hate crimes resource” in 2014 due to intense criticism from both the right and the left, but the DOJ’s relationship with the group appears to have survived.

Goodlatte’s letter mentioned how the FBI had dropped the SPLC, but then pointed out:

“[O]n October 14, 2015, Assistant Attorney General John Carlin delivered remarks on domestic terrorism at an event co-sponsored by SPLC and the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security’s Program on Extremism. In his written remarks, Mr. Carlin stated that ‘SPLC has a long history of tracking and countering hate, and their efforts will continue to be critical.’”

Indeed, WND reported on Oct. 15, 2015, about the announcement made by Carlin that the DOJ was creating a new division that would focus on investigating “extremists” of the home-grown variety.

Carlin cited a study by a George Soros-funded foundation saying “right wing” extremism was more of a danger to America than Islamic terrorists and he applauded the SPLC’s role in helping the government track these “extremist” groups.

At the time, FRC President Tony Perkins told WND it was ironic that the SPLC should be selected for this quasi-governmental role of determining who is a violent extremist when the organization itself provided the inspiration for a domestic terrorist attack against his organization.

WND devoted the full issue of its March 2015 magazine, Whistleblower, to documenting the machinations of the SPLC with an edition titled: “The Hate Racket: How one group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis –and rakes in millions doing it.”

David Kupelian, managing editor of WND and editor of Whistleblower magazine, wrote:

“The Southern Poverty Law Center began with an admirable purpose, but long ago transformed into a machine for raising money and launching leftwing political attacks. In recent years it has become more of a threat to free speech and civil debate than a defender of the weak or a foe of violent extremism.”

And:

“[T]his particular far-left organization exerts a major influence on government, including the Department of Homeland Security. It’s no coincidence that the government’s idea of who is a threat, a hater, an extremist, a potential terrorist, a danger to the American homeland, mirrors that of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“For years, government agencies including the FBI have relied on and formed partnerships and outreach arrangements with the Southern Poverty Law Center (although the FBI recently scrubbed the SPLC as a resource from its website after the perpetrator of an attempted domestic terrorist attack identified the SPLC as having inspired him to target the D.C.-based Family Research Council for mass murder).

“Nevertheless, as SPLC spokesman Mark Potok confirms, ‘Law enforcement agencies come to us every day with questions about particular groups,’ and even the U.S. military has been caught on multiple occasions relying on SPLC information for “training materials” on domestic threats – sometimes portraying Christians as a greater threat than Islamic radicals.”

The following is a link to the letter Goodlatte sent to Lynch:

Goodlatte HJC oversight letter to Loretta Lynch 03.23.16 (1) (1)

The following is a link to the letter concerned groups sent to Goodlatte.

SPLC letter

Standing up for freedom isn’t hate

Jim Hanson @Uncle_Jimbo

Jim Hanson @Uncle_Jimbo

The Hill, by Jim Hanson, Feb. 24, 2016:

When did standing up for basic human rights become hate speech? The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) can’t seem to tell the difference any more. It was once a premier civil rights organization instrumental in taking down the Ku Klux Klan. Now it attacks those who profess unpopular or politically incorrect opinions. The latest target is the Center for Security Policy (CSP) for our work exposing and opposing Islamist groups. For this they are adding us to their annual list of “hate groups”.

CSP stands for freedom and liberty against a collection of groups that really do “hate”. We believe that all people should be able to live freely, but the radical Islamist groups do not. The premier institute of Islamic thought is al-Azhar University in Egypt and it publicly stated that even ISIS was still part of Islam. We should not be censored for pointing that out and that we differ from the Islamists on numerous other human rights issues as well.

We believe women are equal citizens. They believe women are property whose testimony in court counts less than a man’s.We believe homosexuals have a right to live without fear. They believe homosexuals should be hung or tossed off rooftops.

We believe young girls are humans with full rights. They believe in female genital mutilation, honor killings and child brides.

In what crazy mixed up world are we the bad guys for making this clear? Loving the freedoms all people are endowed with by their creator is an embodiment of American values. The Islamic law, sharia, they look to impose is an embodiment of subjugation. Too many Muslims actually think shariah should be supreme over our Supreme Court and the entire Constitution. CSP vigorously opposes this and we will speak out against it, and we hope others will add their voices.

The Islamist groups have made some unlikely allies on the political Left, like the SPLC. Together they are trying to suppress free speech by calling it Islamophobia. A phobia is an irrational fear, but the horrors perpetrated by the violent Islamists are all too real as are the attempts by their allies to bring customs abhorrent to free people here.

We will continue to speak out strongly in support of the freedoms that make this country great. It is love of those freedoms, not “hate” that leads us to call out those who truly deserve that moniker. The Islamists oppress women, homosexuals, non-believers and they are using violent and civilizational means to impose their will on all of us. CSP believes in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Hanson is the executive vice president for the Center for Security Policy.

Geller VIDEO: SPLC Hit List

 

splc-1

By Pamela Geller, Feb. 22, 2016:

With three jihadis dead and two jihadis jailed in attempts to kill me since my free speech event in Garland, Texas last May, the SPLC’s designation of me as an “Islamophobe” and “hatemonger” is just encouraging more jihadis to come after me — and the other women this Communist hate group names. At a time when jihad killers are moving actively against those whom they hate in the U.S., this is a quite literal hit list. If any of the people named on this list are attacked or killed by jihadis, the SPLC ought to be shut down and prosecuted for incitement — not that such a thing is likely to happen in Obama’s America. Instead, Obama will probably send the SPLC a letter of commendation the week after the killing, as he did with the Oklahoma mosque after a Muslim beheaded one of his coworkers there.

Consider this. The SPLC lists my organizations as hate groups. AFDI, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, is a human rights organization dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and individual rights is designated a hate group by a vicious uber left, pro-jihadist organization widely cited by the media and Obama’s Department of Justice. My group is a human rights group, but the Nation of Islam has been removed from the SPLC’s hate group list.  This is the morally inverted state of the world.

Even worse, under the guise of “tracking domestic terrorism,” Obama’s battering ram, the Department of Justice, is colluding with the SPLC to target Americans who oppose Obama’s anti-American domestic and foreign policies. Will Obama employ his “global police force” to go after patriots, vets, tea parties, and counter jihadists?

The SPLC is not a group dedicated to the defense of human rights. It is a hard-left attack machine. Vets, patriots, and freedom’s defenders are in its cross-hairs. Even Presidential hopeful Ben Carson was on their hate list for some time.

Even worse, members of the SPLC have committed a number of acts of terrorism. Several years ago, SPLC member Floyd Corkins stormed the Family Research Council’s Washington, D.C. headquarters and began shooting. Why? Because the FRC had been listed as a hate group by the SPLC. Corkins shot a brave security guard in the arm, but the guard still managed to wrestle him to the ground before he could kill or injure others. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins stated: “Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy

The SPLC is a dangerous subversive organization that partners with Islamic supremacist and other treasonous groups to destroy America from within. A DOJ official praises the Southern Poverty Law Center’s work in “combating domestic terrorism.” But members are violent domestic terrorists. The communists over at the Southern Poverty Law Center are among the gravest threats to freedom in the United States, “a wellspring of manufactured hate” and are named as such in the AFDI Threats to Freedom Index.

Who watches the watchmen? Who appointed this vicious group the arbiter of what is hate and what isn’t? Why is fighting for the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people now classified as “hate”? An uncritical, uninformed public takes for granted that the SPLC is some kind of neutral observer, when actually it uses its “hate group” classifications to stigmatize and demonize foes of its political agenda.

What do Ben Carson, Frank Gaffney share? Both are victims of a left-wing smear machine

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson speaks during a campaign rally at the Sharonville Convention Center, Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2015, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson speaks during a campaign rally at the Sharonville Convention Center, Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2015, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Fox News, by Fred Fleitz, Feb. 19, 2016:

This week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named my organization, the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a “hate group” because of our work highlighting the threat from radical Islam.  CSP will join other conservative groups such the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel and WorldNetDaily, all of which SPLC has smeared by listing them alongside neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.

The SPLC is best known for its work decades ago fighting legal battles against segregation in the South.  But it long ago morphed into a far left group with one purpose: manufacturing material to slander conservatives for use by the news media and on the Internet.

CSP President Frank Gaffney has been on another SPLC hate list for several years along with American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray, Accuracy in Media President Cliff Kinkaid (who SPLC has singled out for challenging global warming), Robert Spencer (the founder of director of Jihad Watch blog), Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (executive vice president of the Family Research Council), WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah and other conservatives.  Joining them on this list are an assortment of neo-Nazis, KKK members and white supremacists.

Dr. Ben Carson was placed on a SPLC “extremist watch list” in 2014 because of statements he made in defense of traditional marriage.  But after a public outcry, the SPLC was forced to withdraw this designation and issue an apology to Carson in February 2015.

Among the many false claims in the SPLC’s new list of hate groups is that Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy have been banned from participating in the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and that Gaffney’s banishment from CPAC “probably earns him points with Trump.”

Although CPAC and the Center have had some differences in the past, this is no longer the case.  Gaffney and the Center were present at CPAC last year and will have an expanded presence in 2016.

I will be speaking at CPAC 2016 conference next month on behalf of the Center on the Iranian and North Korean missile programs.

To show how sloppy the SPLC’s research is, a 2015 SPLC report noted that Gaffney and the Center were present at CPAC’s 2015 conference and that the Center was a sponsor.

As ridiculous as the SPLC hate lists may sound, they often are taken seriously by the liberal media.  These lists almost had deadly consequences in 2012 when Floyd Corkins, a volunteer at a gay-rights group, entered the office lobby of the Family Research Council with the intention of killing as many of the Council’s employees as possible because of the organization’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

Corkins shot and injured a building manager before he was disarmed.  He decided to launch a killing spree against the Family Research Council and another conservative organization after he read about their opposition to gay marriage in the SPLC’s hate lists.

While SPLC regularly lumps conservatives with neo-nazis and white supremacists for being anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Islamophobes, white nationalists or for miscellaneous hate (such disbelieving in global warming), it refuses to put liberal individuals and groups on their hate lists.

For example, the SPLC had nothing to say last summer when left wing groups like MoveOn.org, the Daily Kos, Credo and the National Iranian American Council attacked Jewish congressmen who opposed the nuclear deal with Iran like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) by questioning their loyalty to this country.

Elliot Abrams decried this bigotry in an August 10, 2015 article in The Weekly Standard:

“The basic idea is simple: to oppose the president’s Iran deal means you want war with Iran, you’re an Israeli agent, you are in the pay of Jewish donors, and you are abandoning the best interests of the United States. So Dan Pfeiffer, senior political adviser to Obama until this winter, tweeted that Senator Charles Schumer—who announced his opposition to the Iran deal last week—should not be Democratic leader in the Senate because he “wants War with Iran.”

SPLC also has been silent on a growing anti-Semitism on the left and how American colleges are ignoring violence against Jewish students in Israel and the United States.

On the other hand, the SPLC has joined President Obama in jumping on the fraudulent Islamophobia bandwagon.  That’s why CSP and Gaffney caught its attention.

I join Frank Gaffney and everyone at the Center for Security Policy in strenuously condemning discrimination, mistreatment or violence against Muslims and members of any religious group.

The Islamophobia charges made against CSP and other critics of radical Islam have nothing to do with hate or bigotry – they are a ploy by Mr. Obama, American Muslim groups and liberal groups to sidestep how Islamist extremism represents, as American Islamic Forum for Democracy President Zuhdi Jasser has put it, “a problem within the house of Islam.”

This problem is the global jihad movement which is an ideology at war not just with modern society but also with the majority of the world’s Muslims.

This is the real hate: Islamic supremacists cloaking their intolerance and hatred towards anyone who rejects their extremism – Muslims and non-Muslims – as protected religious practice. This hate includes brutalizing and killing groups that the SPLC claims to protect: women, LGBT individuals and racial and ethnic minorities.

The SPLC designated Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy as “haters” because of our work to publicize the threat posed by to the supremacist Islamic shariah doctrine, a threat that President Obama and liberal groups refuse to confront or even name.  They are in denial about this threat and instead condemn as bigots anyone who tries to address it.

This was crystal clear when President Obama on February 3 visited a mosque in Baltimore with known terrorist ties but refuses to meet with Muslims like Dr. Jasser who is leading an Islam reform movement that rejects Islamist radicalism and ISIS.

American leftwing groups like SPLC have also stubbornly ignored flagrantly hateful statements by some American Muslim groups.

There was a glaring example of this after the San Bernardino shooting when Hussam Ayloush, the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told CNN’s “New Day,” “some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West have fueled that extremism. … We are partly responsible.”

In May 2004, Ayloush said the U.S. war on terror was a “war on Muslims,” adding his belief that the 9/11 attacks were committed because of “the U.S.’s unconditional support of Israel.” The U.S. is Israel’s “partner in crime” against the Palestinians, Ayloush explained.

How can a supposed civil rights organization like the SPLC give Ayloush and CAIR a pass on such hateful statements and actions?

How can it not speak out against growing anti-Semitism on the left and violence against Jewish students in Israel and the United States?

One reason is that the SPLC is not a civil rights organization – it is a far left advocacy group that tries to discredit its political enemies on the right with incoherent hate lists that wrongly associate them with notorious bigots to advance a liberal agenda.  This is consistent with #12 of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

SPLC also demonized conservatives with bogus hate charges because it has found this kind of fearmongering to be very lucrative.  According to the SPLC’s 2014 tax return, this non-profit organization had $54 million in revenue and $315 million in assets.

Back in 2000, an investigative report into the SPLC’s activities was published by Harper’s Magazine titled The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance.  It described the SPLC and its activities as “essentially a fraud” that “shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people.”

Perhaps the main reason the SPLC has been able to raise such huge sums because its president, Morris Dees, is so skilled at using scare mongering mailings for fund raising that in 1998 he was inducted into the Direct Mailing Association Hall of Fame.

Based on its 2010 tax return, the liberal website Daily Kos criticized the SPLC in 2012 for its enormous wealth, offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands, and ownership in several foreign corporations.

The author of this article asked, “What I’m very curious to learn is how keeping hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in assets, several offshore bank accounts and part ownership in foreign financial firms in any substantive way addresses poverty in America.”

I believe the SPLC’s new focus on Islamophobia is because the organization has identified attacking critics of radical Islam as the ultimate money pot.  For example, Saleh Abdulla Kamel, a Saudi banker believed to have been a financer of Usama bin Laden, gave $10 million to Yale University in 2015 to build an Islamic law center.

Given the SPLC’s lack of scruples, greed and offshore operations, I believe it is very likely that this group is receiving funding from Gulf state billionaires like Kamel to discredit anyone who criticizes radical Islam and the global jihad movement.

The news media must stop being manipulated by the SPLC’s calumny of its political enemies.

Reporters should realize that an organization which attacks all critics of radical Islam as Islamophobes, refuses to mention the extremism and intolerance of radical Islamist groups, and is silent on the growing anti-Semitism on the left and violence against Jewish university students cannot be considered a neutral and authoritative source.

The media also needs recognize that the SPLC’s hate lists which lump Ben Carson, Frank Gaffney, Cliff Kinkaid and organizations like the Family Resource Council, WorldNet Daily and the Center for Security Policy with neo-Nazis and white supremacists are utter nonsense.

The press should instead be investigating the SPLC’s enormous wealth, anonymous funders and how it is poisoning the public debate in this country to advance a liberal agenda and to enrich itself.

Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC national security think tank. He held U.S. government national security positions for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Fleitz also served as Chief of Staff to John R. Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz specializes in the Iranian nuclear program, terrorism, and intelligence issues. He is the author of “Peacekeeping Fiascos of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions and U.S. Interests” (Praeger, May 30, 2002).