Did Marxists Invent the “War on Hate?”

A Cato Institute forum reveals the radical origins of the Left’s “War on Hate”

Capital Research, by Jacob Grandstaff, November 30, 2017:

Far-left fanatics on college campuses may claim to support new social theories in their pursuit of social justice, but they’re often chasing Marxism by another name.

On November 28, the Cato Institute hosted a policy forum in Washington, D.C., that drew a line connecting the communist Soviet Union with the modern Left’s doctrine of “intersectionality,” the social theory responsible for much of the fanaticism afflicting American college campuses.

The intersectionality theory holds that there are formal categories of hate—sex, race, class, etc.—and they overlap into institutionalized oppression.

The forum, entitled “Marxist Origins of Hate-Speech Legislation and Political Correctness,” featured the American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Christina Hoff Sommers and Cato Institute Senior Fellow Flemming Rose. Over the course of the forum, the scholars revealed how Western intellectuals rebranded Marxism as social egalitarianism, minimizing its economic elements, after the USSR lost moral credibility in the West at the beginning of the Cold War. But Marxists never relinquished their animosity toward the so-called “bourgeoisie.”

Sommers jokingly began her address by thanking the Cato Institute for providing a “safe space” for freedom of expression.

“When future historians look back and try to understand what the hell happened to American campuses in the second decade of the 21st century,” she said, “they are going to find the real culprit to be a theory; and it’s called intersectionality.”

The intersectionality theory dates back to the 1970s (though it wasn’t coined until 1989), and the beginnings of “privileges” in ethnicity and gender. For instance, theorists might argue that a white woman is privileged by her race, but disadvantaged by her gender. Minority women “would be in double jeopardy” – disadvantaged by both their race and gender.

Although the theory began with a focus on black women, the number of apparently “victimized” groups quickly multiplied. Sommers said she attended a feminist conference which divided the women based on their “grievances and healing needs.”

There were groups for black women, Asian women, Jewish women, fat women, gay women. None of the groups proved stable. People started quarreling, and so there was, like, a black lesbian group—the Jewish women started a fight—some wanted to celebrate their religion, others wanted to overcome it. There was just this continuous process of mitosis.

I eventually ended up bonding with a group of lesbian separatists.

“I wasn’t a smoker, but I needed a cigarette,” she said to audience laughter, “And they smoked!”

Sommers, who regards herself as a classical “equity feminist” contrasted her feminism, which grew out of the Enlightenment, to this new form of feminism, which she said “came straight out of Marxism via the Frankfurt School, via French philosophers, and maybe a little of the self-esteem movement.”

“If you’re committed to this theory, you’re not going to worry about niceties like free expression,” she added. “You’re on an urgent mission to dismantle a lethal system of oppression.”

Sommers also reminded the audience of a recent incident at Reed College, where a group of students protested and shut down a class because the lesbian professor’s teaching of the ancient Greek poet Sappho was insufficiently intersectional. She recounted another experience at Oberlin College, where “30 women and a therapy dog fled to a safe room” to escape her presence.

“I feel bad for that dog,” she added.

Sommers pointed out that the main difference between Bolsheviks and intersectionalists is that the latter don’t have the power to put people in prison. If they did, though, they would likely put her in prison, as well as many other dissenters.

Too many textbooks and professors indoctrinate students to believe that levels of oppression exist in society, based on marginalized identities. This leads to so-called “microaggressions,” supposed slights made by the upper echelons of the intersectionality food chain against those at the bottom to remind them of their inferior status. This creates an environment where all students, regardless of their gender or ethnicity, can now feel equally oppressed because the possibility of victimhood mitosis is endless.

Sommers marvels at how most students “don’t seem to flinch” when they hear professors damning the United States as an imperialist, oppressive power. “I might be paranoid,” she said, but she suspects students hear this theory in high school and become conditioned to believe this when they arrive at college. During the question and answer session, a mother from Alexandria, Virginia, confirmed that indoctrination does begin in high school, noting that her children’s school heavily emphasizes the theory of intersectionality – marketing it as a celebration of “diversity.”

Sommers said that defeating this Marxist-inspired theory will require liberals to combat it because most of the criticism so far has come from conservatives. “But there just aren’t that many conservative professors,” she lamented.

 Back (from) the USSR?

Cato Senior Fellow Flemming Rose drew a compelling comparison between the USSR’s crackdown on the dissension it called “hate speech” and “fake news,” and the modern trend in Western democracies to censor free speech online. He noted that “every liberal democracy, except [the] United States, has hate speech laws on the books, and the global trend is toward a tougher application of these laws.” He recounted how the basis for these hate speech laws’ spreading to Western democracies began with Stalin and the Soviet Union’s supporting them through the United Nations after World War II.

Rose pointed to Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the UN’s Covenant of Political and Civil Rights (1966). “The Soviet Union defeated the Western countries in the wording of Article 20, Paragraph 2,” he said, “and the repercussions of that defeat can still be felt in the West.” The fundamental disagreement between the democratic West and the communist East centered on how far the criminalization of speech should go. The U.S. and its allies supported language that mirrored the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. In the end, however, the Soviets won, and the final draft’s language advocated the criminalization of any speech that constitutes “incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” Rose noted that the Western democracies that have enacted Soviet-style hate speech legislation of their own, have done so since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Although their intentions may be more noble than the intentions of the Soviet Union, the European states that sixty years ago found hate speech laws dangerous and arbitrary have today become active proponents of such laws.

Addressing the crackdown on “fake news,” Rose pointed out that Vladimir Lenin began the censorship of media on his second day in power. Lenin’s justification? The press was owned by the wealthy class and their wealth allowed them to “poison people’s minds and sow confusion through slanderous distortion of facts.” Rose said that the Soviet experiment should give anyone “cause for pause” when it comes to using censorship to eliminate supposedly “fake news.” He pointed out that the Soviet penal code mandated sending violators of the media crackdown to labor camps.

Rose compared the Soviet crackdown with the modern sentiment of modern European Union leaders. Germany’s Minister of Justice, Heiko Maas, said in defense of his country’s crackdown on Facebook earlier this year that “defamation and malicious gossip are not covered under freedom of speech. . . . Anyone who tries to manipulate the political discussion needs to be aware of the consequences.” Italy’s antitrust chief Giovanni Pitruzzella said, “Post-truth in politics is one of the drivers of populism and it is one of the threats to our democracies.”

“Soviet censors would have applauded this kind of argumentation,” Rose said.

Rose credits utopianism for the push for hate speech laws, saying, “They believe if we eradicate hate, then eternal peace will arrive, and everything will be great.” Although hate is not a very constructive emotion, it sometimes “makes sense.” He noted that he recently learned that the emotions of hate and love are so close linked in the brain, that eradicating hate could also eradicate love.

One such organization that seeks to eliminate hate from society through suppressive, bullying tactics is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). CRC has closely covered SPLC’s recklessness in labeling right-of-center groups who do not conform to its views of social justice as ‘hate groups.’

“Conservative writers have observed that to be called a “racist” today is akin to the label “Communist” in the 1950s,” wrote CRC Senior Vice President Matthew Vadum. “Indeed, the SPLC’s tactics are hard to distinguish from those of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was also a fan of guilt by association.”

While straining at gnats to find intersectional oppression in Western society, the SPLC attacked J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. On SPLC’s website Tolerance.org, Colleen O’Brien wrote in 2004,

In J.K. Rowling’s world, half-blood means ‘half magic.’ But the term—reflecting a dichotomy between magic/powerful and mundane/helpless—implies a hierarchy. This ‘magic’ hierarchy directly resembles racial hierarchies.

On Lord of the Rings, Andrea Lewis wrote,

Almost all of the heroes of the series are manly men who are whiter than white. They are frequently framed in halos of blinding bright light and exude a heavenly aura of all that is Eurocentric and good. Who but these courageous Anglo-Saxon souls can save Middle Earth from the dark and evil forces of the world?

Lewis contrasted this with the movie The Matrix, in which “(Lambert Wilson) with his French accent; the dread-locked, very British albino twins (Neil and Adrian Rayment); and the Oracle’s evil counterpart, the Architect (Helmut Bakaitis), a rather stuffy and pompous white guy with white beard and white suit who reeks of imperialism.” [Parentheses in original.]

Vadum noted that Lewis believes that “art should be a slave to politics.” “To my African American female eyes,” Lewis wrote, “the biggest difference between ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and ‘The Matrix’ isn’t swords vs. automatic weapons, or low-tech vs. high-tech. It’s the patriarchy of the past versus the Rainbow Coalition of the future.”

But money, not theory, reigns supreme for the SPLC social justice warriors in their Montgomery, Alabama Poverty Palace.

The SPLC prides itself on using the law to fight hate groups. But CRC discovered that the organization’s 2015 salary expenditure outpaced its legal services 328 to 1. Its base salary for officers, directors, trustees, and key employees in 2015 was $140,000, in a state where the mean salary for religious and education directors, including private school principals, was $40,820 in 2015.

The SPLC takes advantage of people’s goodwill,” said Sommers – all to raise money.

“The SPLC even attacked my friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an extremist,” Sommers said, all because Ali sheds a light on violent Islamic extremism. (The Somali-born Ali is a noted critic of Islam, and a former member of the Dutch parliament living in the U.S.) In an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Why is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals,” Ali stated, “You will look in vain for the S.P.L.C.’s “Field Guide to Muslim Extremists.” No such list exists.”

CRC’s Chase Paulson has noted that the SPLC refuses to label Antifa, a movement that has had ties with Muslim extremists and communists, a hate group. SPLC president Richard Cohen instead called them “wrongheaded,” telling the Washington Examiner that “[t]here might be forms of hate out there that you may consider hateful, but it’s not the type of hate we follow.”

A glance at the SPLC’s website reveals why: the only type of hate that concerns the SPLC is the type that fits the theory of intersectionality.

Also see:

47 Groups Weighing SPLC Lawsuit Warn ‘Editors, CEOs’: ‘You Are Complicit’ in Hate Group ‘Defamation’

Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Map

PJ Media, June 20, 2018:

On Wednesday, no fewer than 47 nonprofit leaders maligned by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) — many if not most of whom are considering a lawsuit against the organization — warned a vast array of executives and leaders that if they parrot the SPLC’s damaging “hate group” labels, they would be “complicit” in “defamation.”

“Editors, CEOs, shareholders and consumers alike are on notice: anyone relying upon and repeating its misrepresentations is complicit in the SPLC’s harmful defamation of large numbers of American citizens who, like the undersigned, have been vilified simply for working to protect our country and freedoms,” the signatories wrote.

The letter followed news — broken at PJ Media — that no fewer than 60 organizations are considering suing the SPLC following a groundbreaking settlement in which the organization formally apologized to a Muslim reformer, Maajid Nawaz, for branding him an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

In 2016, the SPLC published its “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” listing Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz, a practicing Muslim, as one such extremist. The left-wing group listed various and changing reasons for including him, even at one point mentioning that he had gone to a strip club for his bachelor party. On Monday, the SPLC apologized and paid $3.375 million to settle a lawsuit Nawaz had filed.

“We haven’t filed anything against the SPLC, but I think a number of organizations have been considering filing lawsuits against the SPLC because they have been doing to a lot of organizations exactly what they did to Maajid Nawaz,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told PJ Media on Tuesday.

Representatives of the Family Research Council (FRC), the Ruth Institute, and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told PJ Media they were considering “legal options.”

Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against the charity navigation organization GuideStar for defamation after GuideStar adopted the SPLC’s “hate group” list. That lawsuit is ongoing.

Staver further told PJ Media, “There are probably about 60 organizations that we’re talking to — there’s at least 60.”

The letter published Wednesday featured roughly the same list of groups that denounced the SPLC’s “hate list” in an open letter to the media last year. The SPLC has admitted that its “hate group” list is based on “opinion.”

Worse, in 2012, a terrorist broke into the Family Research Council (FRC) with a semi-automatic pistol, aiming to kill everyone in the building. In later FBI testimony, he admitted to targeting FRC because it was on the SPLC’s “hate map,” and that he intended to shoot up other organizations once he finished there.

The letter’s legal threat should be abundantly clear. Ken Cuccinelli, former attorney general of Virginia, signed the letter, as did PJ Media’s J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Michael P. Farris, president, CEO, and general counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), represents an organization that has won eight Supreme Court cases in the past seven years.

“We, the undersigned, are among the organizations, groups and individuals that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has maligned, defamed and otherwise harmed by falsely describing as ‘haters,’ ‘bigots,’ ‘Islamophobes’ and/or other groundless epithets,” the signatories declared. “We are gratified that the SPLC has today formally acknowledged that it has engaged in such misrepresentations.”

The out-of-court settlement with Nawaz was formally announced Wednesday, and the signatories mentioned it as “tangible proof that the SPLC, which amounts to little more than a leftist instrument of political warfare against those with whom it disagrees, fully deserves the infamy it has lately earned.”

“Journalists who uncritically parrot or cite the SPLC’s unfounded characterizations of those it reviles do a profound disservice to their audiences,” the signatories wrote.

Some might argue — like Reason‘s Robby Soave — that suits against the SPLC are a threat to free speech. In an interview with PJ Media, DJKM spokesman John Rabe explained that the SPLC  has “supplied government and law enforcement with their information.” Given the 2012 attack and SPLC’s work with the government, “it’s no longer a free speech issue, there’s a substantive issue with these false and slanderous claims that the SPLC makes.”

“Slander and malice are never protected,” and such factors loom large in litigation. Rabe argued that DJKM and other organizations suing the SPLC should win partially because the left-wing group has a documented malice against these groups.

The threat to journalists should be taken particularly seriously, as CNN uncritically shared the SPLC “hate map” last year, and outlets like ABC News and NBC Newsuncritically marked ADF a “hate group” using the SPLC label.

The threat to CEOs extends to various companies — like Google and Amazon — that use the “hate list” to marginalize certain groups online. Large companies have also partnered with the SPLC in other ways. Apple pledged $1 million to the organization, along with other key benefits, while J.P. Morgan chipped in $500,000. Companies like Lyft and MGM Resorts have partnered with the group, while Pfizer, Bank of America, and Newman’s Own have each contributed over $8,900 to the SPLC in recent years.

The scope of this potential lawsuit is hard to determine, and the threat is real. News outlets, companies, and organizations that champion the SPLC’s “hate list” should be quaking in their boots.

Also see:

***

‘About 60 Organizations’ Are Considering a Lawsuit Against the SPLC Following $3M Nawaz Settlement

Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Map

PJ Media, by Tyler O’Neil, June 19, 2018:

No fewer than 60 organizations branded “hate groups” or otherwise attacked by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are considering legal action against the left-wing smear factory, a Christian legal nonprofit leader confirmed to PJ Media on Tuesday. He suggested that the $3 million settlement and apology the SPLC gave to Maajid Nawaz and his Quilliam Foundation on Monday would encourage further legal action.

“We haven’t filed anything against the SPLC, but I think a number of organizations have been considering filing lawsuits against the SPLC, because they have been doing to a lot of organizations exactly what they did to Maajid Nawaz,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told PJ Media on Tuesday.

Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against the charity navigation organization GuideStar for defamation after GuideStar adopted the SPLC’s “hate group” list. That lawsuit is ongoing.

In 2016, the SPLC published its “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” listing Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz, a practicing Muslim, as one such extremist. The left-wing group listed various reasons for including him, changing the reasons every so often, and even at one point mentioning that he had gone to a strip club for his bachelor party.

On Monday, SPLC President Richard Cohen extended his group’s “sincerest apologies to Mr. Nawaz, Quilliam, and our readers for the error, and we wish Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam all the best.” In settling the suit, the SPLC paid Nawaz’s organization $3.375 million.

“This is a significant settlement,” Staver told PJ Media. “3.375 million dollars, and it did not even go to litigation; it was a result of a demand letter.”

Importantly, “the allegations that were at issue here were very similar to the allegations against the other groups,” the Liberty Counsel chairman explained. “The SPLC promotes false propaganda, demonizes and labels groups they disagree with, and that labeling has economic as well as physical consequences.”

The SPLC started as a group to oppose racist terrorism, and its first legal action targeted the Ku Klux Klan. In recent decades, the organization has begun marking mainstream organizations as “hate groups” on par with the KKK. Last year, 47 nonprofit leaders denounced the SPLC’s “hate list” in an open letter to the media. The SPLC has admitted that its “hate group” list is based on “opinion.”

Staver insisted that the settlement with Nawaz “will encourage further legal action.” He suggested that the settlement “helps our lawsuit against GuideStar” and may encourage organizations that were considering suing the SPLC to actually file the paperwork.

“There are probably about 60 organizations that we’re talking to — there’s at least 60,” Staver told PJ Media. He mentioned the group of 47 nonprofit leaders who denounced the SPLC last year, and said “that group has grown since then.”

Furthermore, many of the “hate groups” attacked by the SPLC do not encourage hate or violence, but merely disagree with the left-wing organization’s political views. Many — like the Family Research Council (FRC), the Ruth Institute, and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — merely stand for marriage as between one man and one woman. The SPLC has twisted 30-year-old arguments to smear these groups, and in one egregious case the group actually quoted as hateful the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Other organizations attacked by the SPLC also told PJ Media they are “considering their options” regarding a lawsuit.

“Truthfully, I have not been following the activities of the SPLC too closely,” Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute, an organization that lost its credit card processor, Vanco Payments, over the SPLC’s “hate group” labeling last year, told PJ Media. “Pursuing our mission is more important than attempting to take on the behemoth of the SPLC.”

“I must say, though, this apology to Mr. Nawaz has caused us to consider our options,” Morse added, cryptically.

“We are reviewing all our legal options,” J.P. Duffy, a spokesman for the Family Research Council, told PJ Media on Tuesday.

A spokesman for Prager University, another organization attacked by the SPLC, said that “at this point” the group had “no intention to sue,” but they “reserve the right to change their mind as the situation evolves.”

Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), echoed this trend, saying his organization is “evaluating all our options,” including a potential lawsuit.

“It’s appalling and offensive for the Southern Poverty Law Center to compare peaceful organizations which condemn violence and racism with violent and racist groups just because it disagrees with their views,” Tedesco told PJ Media. “That’s what SPLC did in the case of Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz, and that’s what it has done with ADF and numerous other organizations and individuals.”

“This situation confirms once again what commentators across the political spectrum have been saying for decades: SPLC has become a far-left organization that brands its political opponents as ‘haters’ and ‘extremists’ and has lost all credibility as a civil rights watchdog,” the ADF senior counsel added.

Tedesco defended the good name of Alliance Defending Freedom, which SPLC falsely maligns as a “hate group.” “With eight wins in the last seven years at the U.S. Supreme Court and hundreds of victories for free speech at America’s public universities, ADF is one of the nation’s most respected and successful legal advocates, working to preserve our fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience for people from all walks of life,” he said.

“SPLC’s partisan tactics and slander have ruinous, real-world consequences for which they should not be excused; we are evaluating all our options to defend the good name of ADF, including possible legal action,” Tedesco concluded.

Staver noted that the SPLC labels groups “in order to destroy them,” and he pointed out that that characterization comes from the SPLC’s own words. The Liberty Counsel chairman also referenced a terror attack inspired by the left-wing group’s “hate map.”

In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins III broke into the Family Research Council (FRC), aiming to kill everyone in the building. He admitted to targeting the FRC because the SPLC listed it as an “anti-gay group” on its “hate map.” That wasn’t the only incident connecting the SPLC with terror, however.

“Even the shooter last year in D.C. was a Facebook fan of the SPLC and the SPLC ran a false article saying [House Majority Whip] Steve Scaliese was a white supremacist,” Staver added. In a statement, Nawaz himself had highlighted the connection between the SPLC and James Hodgkinson, the Congressional Baseball Game shooter last summer.

“There are people out there that are unhinged. They go out and take action. They assume that somebody hates them,” the Liberty Counsel chairman explained. Due to these radical actors, “You have to be careful with your language. We can disagree but we can’t demonize one another. Certainly, do not do anything that would put somebody that you disagree with in physical danger.”

“The groups that we’re talking to, that have approached us, all of them oppose violence,” Staver said. “None of them advocate violence. They don’t agree with the SPLC on certain issues, but they oppose violence. They have no reason to hate anyone.”

It is hard to predict how a 60-party lawsuit against the SPLC’s “hate group” labeling would play out. D. James Kennedy Ministries, the Christian nonprofit that sued Amazon and the SPLC over the “hate group” defamation last year, reported in late May that a preliminary hearing on its case was a “positive development.”

Nawaz’s case may be unique, since it involved a devout Muslim slandered as an “anti-Muslim extremist.” Even so, the settlement does give grounds for hope, and the falsely labeled “hate groups” are considering their options.

Also see:

Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter all Work With the Left-Wing SPC

Daily Caller, by Peter Hasson, June 7, 2018:

  • The Southern Poverty Law Center helps Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter determine what organizations are “hate groups”
  • Amazon gave the SPLC the most direct authority while pretending to remain unbiased
  • The SPLC has been plagued by inaccuracies

Four of the world’s biggest tech platforms have working partnerships with a left-wing nonprofit that has a track record of inaccuracies and routinely labels conservative organizations as “hate groups.”

Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter all work with or consult the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in policing their platforms for “hate speech” or “hate groups,” a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

The SPLC is on a list of “external experts and organizations” that Facebook works with “to inform our hate speech policies,” Facebook spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja told TheDCNF in an interview.

Facebook consults the outside organizations when developing changes to hate speech policies, Budhraja said, noting that Facebook representatives will typically hold between one and three meetings with the groups.

Citing privacy concerns, the Facebook spokeswoman declined to name all the outside groups working with Facebook, but confirmed the SPLC’s participation.

Budhraja emphasized that Facebook’s definition of “hate group” is distinct from the SPLC’s definition and said that Facebook consults with groups across the political spectrum.

The SPLC accused Facebook in a May 8 article of not doing enough to censor “anti-Muslim hate” on the platform. That article did not disclose the SPLC’s working partnership with Facebook.

“We have our own process and our processes are different and I think that’s why we get the criticism [from the SPLC], because organizations that are hate organizations by their standards don’t match ours,” Budhraja said.

“That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a process in place, and that definitely doesn’t mean we want the platform to be a place for hate but we aren’t going to map to the SPLC’s list or process,” she said.

Of the four companies, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority over its platform, TheDCNF found.

While Facebook emphasizes its independence from the SPLC, Amazon does the opposite: Jeff Bezos’ company grants the SPLC broad policing power over the Amazon Smile charitable program, while claiming to remain unbiased.

“We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” an Amazon spokeswoman told TheDCNF.

Amazon grants the SPLC that power “because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever,” said the spokeswoman, who could not say whether Amazon considers the SPLC to be unbiased.

The Smile program allows customers to identify a charity to receive 0.5 percent of the proceeds from their purchases on Amazon. Customers have given more than $8 million to charities through the program since 2013, according to Amazon.

Only one participant in the program, the SPLC, gets to determine which other groups are allowed to join it.

Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom — which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the Supreme Court — are barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, TheDCNF found in May. (RELATED: Christian Baker Prevails At Supreme Court In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Dispute)

One month later, the anti-Semitic groups — but not the Alliance Defending Freedom — are still able to participate in the program.

Twitter lists the SPLC as a “safety partner” working with Twitter to combat “hateful conduct and harassment.”

The platform also includes the Trust and Safety Council, which “provides input on our safety products, policies, and programs,” according to Twitter. Free speech advocates have criticized it as Orwellian.

A Twitter spokeswoman declined to comment on the SPLC specifically, but said the company is “in regular contact with a wide range of civil society organizations and [nongovernmental organizations].”

Google uses the SPLC to help police hate speech on YouTube as part of YouTube’s “Trusted Flagger” program, The Daily Caller reported in February, citing a source with knowledge of the agreement. Following that report, the SPLC confirmed they’re policing hate speech on YouTube.

The SPLC and other third-party groups in the “Trusted Flagger” program work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, according to YouTube.

First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing the video platform, but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.

The SPLC is one of over 300 government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in the YouTube program, the vast majority of which remain hidden behind confidentiality agreements.

The SPLC has consistently courted controversy in publishing lists of “extremists” and “hate groups.” The nonprofit has been plagued by inaccuracies this year, retracting four articles in March and April alone.

The well-funded nonprofit, which did not return a request for comment, deleted three Russia-related articles in March after challenges to their accuracy followed by legal threats.

All three articles focused on drawing conspiratorial connections between anti-establishment American political figures and Russian influence operations in the United States.

The SPLC removed a controversial “anti-Muslim extremist” list in April, after British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz threatened to sue over his inclusion on the list. The SPLC had accused the supposed-extremists of inciting anti-Muslim hate crimes. (RELATED: SPLC Pulls Controversial ‘Anti-Muslim Extremist’ List After Legal Threats)

Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali also made the list.

Ali, a victim of female genital mutilation who now advocates against the practice, is an award-winning human rights activist. But according to the SPLC’s since-deleted list, she was an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

Ali criticized Apple CEO Tim Cook in August 2017 for donating to the SPLC, which she described as “an organization that has lost its way, smearing people who are fighting for liberty and turning a blind eye to an ideology and political movement that has much in common with Nazism.”

Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who is now the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was surprised to find out in February 2015 that the SPLC had placed him on an “extremist watch list” for his conservative beliefs.

“When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong. It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance,” Carson said in response.

“That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment,” he continued. “It is nothing but projectionism when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters.”

Following a backlash, the SPLC apologized and removed him from their list. Carson was on the list for four months before the SPLC removed the “extremist” label.

Floyd Lee Corkins, who attempted a mass shooting at the conservative Family Research Center in 2012, said he chose the organization for his act of violence because the SPLC listed them as a “hate group.”

The SPLC has faced tough criticisms not just from conservatives, but from establishment publications, as well.

“At a time when the line between ‘hate group’ and mainstream politics is getting thinner and the need for productive civil discourse is growing more serious, fanning liberal fears, while a great opportunity for the SPLC, might be a problem for the nation,” Ben Schreckinger, now with GQ, wrote in a June 2017 piece for Politico.

Washington Post Reporter Megan McArdle, while still reporting for Bloomberg, similarly criticized the SPLC’s flimsy definition of “hate group” in  September 2017. Media outlets who trust the SPLC’s labels, McArdle warned, “will discredit themselves with conservative readers and donors.”

Also see:

***

Fleitz Appointment a Savvy Move by Trump, Bolton

CSP, BY Tom Anderson, June 4, 2018:

Originally posted on Newsmax

I was elated to hear Fred Fleitz just accepted the position of National Security Council chief-of-staff and executive secretary under White House National Security Advisor John Bolton. Americans should be grateful. The appointment is a huge score for enhancing our national security.

We’re all benefactors from President Trump’s and Mr. Bolton’s wisdom. Hosting a news radio show in Alaska can be intriguing, and also challenging at times, securing thoughtful guests that actually understand our northern issues and the nexus with the country as a whole.

Our state’s Arctic policy, military, and resource development issues affect the entire nation, not just the Last Frontier. It was through this venue I connected with Fred Fleitz, who became a regular and appreciated guest.

I’ve interviewed national leaders and pundits from across the spectrum. They can be engaging whether an Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Dr. Sebastian Gorka, or former Gov. Sarah Palin. Of all my guests, Fleitz has been one of the most effective in educating and explaining to listeners his rational on foreign relations and security policy.

I’ve interviewed him over 20 times. As a result, many listeners have come to appreciate government, policy development, and the evolution of sound national-security policy that may have otherwise seemed esoteric.

Fleitz hasn’t forgotten Alaska, or its defensive and resource-rich value to the United States. His analysis and ability to tether military operations, or communications and transportation, to operational logistics involving North Korea and the Middle East has helped shed light on President Obama’s obfuscated policies.

Fleitz has taken a balanced approach on U.S. State Department issues, drawing from his experience with the Central Intelligence Agency as a senior analyst, at the State Department as Bolton’s former chief-of-staff, and with the House Intelligence Committee. The Fleitz appointment feels like a commercial plane ride with a seasoned pilot, or surgery with a reliable veteran surgeon, where you’re relieved from anxiety because of the expertise at the helm. America is in good hands.

When it comes to federal bureaucracy, I can attest to the perception from the public. For many of my listeners in Alaska, there is a deep, growing lack of trust. There is also disappointment.

Morale and inspiration have waned under past presidential administrations that elevated ego and power above service to Americans. From Obamacare to Middle East and European obligations, my listeners consistently convey a feeling of abandonment by national leaders.

Enter selfless advocates like Fred Fleitz and John Bolton, and suddenly a smidgen of hope is sprinkled on disillusionment. These guys have a backbone. Fleitz has taken a principled position on the Iran Nuclear program, siding with Bolton against the majority of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, arguing that the U.S. had to pull out of the fraudulent deal.

Fleitz took this stance even when other conservative advocacies knee-buckled and said stay in the horrific deal. He has been consistent on pulling out of the deal because it literally affords advancement of Iran’s nuclear program.

North Korea is no different. When our president, vice president, and foreign relations envoys are continuously disrespected by a communist regime in dire straits, it’s time to end negotiations until respect is shown. Fleitz is on board with a thoughtful, yet hardline approach to national security. It’s about time.

Here’s another reason why the Fleitz appointment is important: He was made for the job. The chief-of-staff and executive secretary position to the National Security Council is critically important because that appointee helps Mr. Bolton present the President with a full scope of well-argued policy options, which is something President Trump was not receiving under H.R. McMaster.

Cogent, researched national-security policy options are what the president expects from his management team — without success until now, under John Bolton’s leadership.

A president must know the risks, rewards, and resources to make the right decisions. A former CIA senior analyst of Fleitz’s pedigree is appropriate and sensible to promote our best interests.

Based on President Trump’s recent exemplary appointments like Secretary of State Pompeo and Mr. Bolton — and assuming the president and Bolton want the same for the National Security Council management — Fred Fleitz is the best choice.

His expertise, coupled with a history of bucking conventional wisdom when it is antithetical to American interests, falls in line with candidate Trump’s promise and commitment to his constituency.

What I’ve seen and heard in Fleitz is a professional who isn’t afraid of countering the swamp and the foreign policy establishment. If ever that matters, considering our interests being threatened abroad from Europe to Asia to the Middle East, it’s now.

Tom Anderson is a radio talk show host in Alaska and a former state representative.

**

***

Also see:

Dave Bailey comments in his newsletter today:

The appointment of another anti-jihadist to a top White House post is even bigger news than it sounds at first…

Fleitz’s position prior to the White House was as a VP in Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy…

This is the very organization that blew the lid off of Gulftainer’s terrorist and Russian connections…

…when Gulftainer got a 35-year lease for Port Canaveral during the Obama maladministration…

Fleitz is sure to know all about Gulftainer…

…which significantly improves the likelihood that its Port of Wilmington deal will be rejected by the feds…

Keep your fingers crossed…   Dave

Obama Allies Scheme to Kneecap Trump’s New National Security Team

 

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, May 31, 2018:

Organizations and individuals entrenched in the Obama administration’s pro-Iran echo chamber are engaging in a new plot to defame top White House national security officials, a campaign that mirrors a successful effort by these same groups to oust former Trump administration National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, according to sources familiar with the new effort.

After targeting Flynn, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former senior Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, organizations closely tied to the Obama administration are setting their sites on National Security Adviser John Bolton and his newly formed team.

Recent attacks by groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, have centered on Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst who was recently tapped by Bolton to serve as his chief of staff on the White House National Security Council.

Activists from CAIR, the SPLC, and the Anti-Defamation League, or ADL—a civil rights organization currently helmed by a former Obama administration official—are engaged in a coordinated campaign to smear Fleitz and force his ouster from the NSC. The smears have been picked up by sympathetic media outlets who worked closely with these groups while the Obama administration’s so-called “echo chamber” was running at full steam, sources said.

Former senior Obama administration officials such as Ben Rhodes—architect of the pro-Iran echo-chamber that misled Congress and the American public about the nature of the landmark nuclear deal—have amplified these attacks on social media platforms such as Twitter.

Senior Trump administration officials familiar with the situation called the attacks baseless and blamed organizations such as the SPLC for waging a smear campaign out of revenge for Fleitz’s past criticisms of the group, which has been known to attack prominent conservative thought leaders and label them bigots.

“Most of the attacks on Fleitz originated from the far left Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that over the last few years raised money by putting out press releases falsely lumping conservative Americans with neo-Nazis and white supremacists,” said one senior administration official who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on background about the attacks on Fleitz.

“The media must call this attack on Fred Fleitz for what it is a—deliberate smear campaign from the left against the Trump administration,” the official said, referencing a slew of recent media reports repeating accusations by the SPLC, ADL, CAIR, and other liberal activists groups.

Media attacks on Fleitz sponsored by these organizations have focused on his past work with the Center for Security Policy, a conservative national security think-tank helmed by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration official.

CAIR, for instance, has been emailing reporters accusing Fleitz of being an “anti-Muslim hate group leader.” The ADL charged in a recent press release that Fleitz should be fired from his new post in the NSC for his work with Gaffney’s Center, which the ADL labeled “an Islamophobic, conspiracy-promoting organization.”

Multiple sources from across the political world, including within and outside the Trump administration, dismissed these claims against Fleitz as baseless and accused the organizations disseminating the attacks of continuing efforts by members of the Obama administration echo chamber to kneecap Trump’s national security team.

These sources said that Fleitz’s fierce opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran and efforts to counter it riled these activist leaders, many of whom vocally worked with the Obama administration to promote the deal.

“All the people attacking Fred Fleitz’s so vehemently are one of two groups: front organizations and sundry useful idiots that have a vested interest in supporting the murderous mullah of Iran,” Sebastian Gorka, a former strategist and assistant to President Trump, told the Free Beacon.

“The others are the architects of Obama’s disastrous policy of ‘Leading from Behind’ and the 44th president’s American apology tour, which led to a more aggressive Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China,” said Gorka, who was subjected to similar attacks by these organizations during his time in the White House.

“In either instance, they prove by their actions just how superb a choice John Bolton made by bringing in a true patriot and national security professional like Fred Fleitz,” Gorka said.

Administration insiders and other sources intimately familiar with Fleitz’s past work dismissed claims that he is Islamaphobic as ridiculous. Fleitz remains an ardent critic of radical Islam, but has gone to great lengths in the past to defend the religion’s peaceful believers.

Charges that Fleitz believes Muslims are trying to take over the U.S. government also are bunk, these sources said, referring to them as just another attempt by onetime Obama officials to derail Trump’s national security agenda.

“The smear campaign against Fred Fleitz is typical of the Obama White House echo chamber,” said Christopher Hull, a former congressional chief of staff who now serves as the Center For Security Policy’s executive vice president. “It includes ad hominem attacks, distortions, and guilt by association. ”

“Fleitz’s critics’ objective, of course, is to maintain Obama’s treasonously weak policies toward America’s enemies, foreign and domestic,” Hull said. “It is no coincidence that among Fleitz’s critics are those in the cross-hairs of any reasonably robust effort to keep America secure.”

The SPLC has taken the lead on these attacks, a point emphasized by administration officials and others who claim the group is seeking revenge for Fleitz’s past criticisms of its efforts to smear conservatives.

One former senior defense official who has worked with Fleitz told the Free Beacon that the series of attacks on the new NSC official are part and parcel of the SPLC’s strategy to label conservative thinkers at hate mongers.

“They throw these attacks out there without any evidence,” said the official, who would only speak on background about the matter. “There’s no evidence for what they’re saying.”

“This is dog whistling to the haters on the left,” the source said.

A who’s who of conservative thinkers and officials who have faced similar attacks by Obama loyalists have already rushed to defend Fleitz.

Peter Hoekstra, former chair of the House Intelligence Committee and the Trump administration’s current U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, told the Free Beacon that Fleitz is playing a key role in shaping the White House’s national security agenda—which includes imposing maximum sanctions on Iran and shutting down European business deals with the Islamic Republic.

“Fred has either worked for me or with me for the last 13 plus years,” Hoekstra said. “His experience and in depth knowledge on a wide range of issues, including the threats from Iran and terrorism, will be a real asset to President Trump’s national security team.”

Morton Klein, longtime president of the Zionist Organization of America, slammed the ADL for putting partisan politics over its decades-old agenda of defending the Jewish community against rising anti-Semitism.

“Fleitz is a strong supporter of Israel, understands the reality and dangers of the Arab Islamic war against Israel, and the danger of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s threats against Israel and the U.S.,” Klein told the Free Beacon. “It is deeply disappointing to see ADL, whose mission is to help Israel, oppose the appointment of such a great friend of the Jewish State.”

Antifa, CAIR and the Southern Poverty Law Center work together to silence speech

Brannon Howse is the organizer of the events shutdown by anti-free speech domestic terrorists. http://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/marxist-islamists-groups-shut-down-worldview-weekend-events-how-we-are-losing-our-freedom

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran on April 13, 2018:

You haven’t seen it on cable news, or on the pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times, but last weekend brazen domestic terrorists working on behalf of Islamists shut down speaking events they disapproved of in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

This extremist tactic of intimidating speaking venues, such as hotels, isn’t new, but it is on the upswing in the age of Trump. And, I think that is because the Hard Left has really lost it, their frustration and anger at losing the White House must have pushed them psychologically over the edge. They are very dangerous people.

Our friend James Simpson has the full story here at The Daily Caller.

Here are a few snips:

Antifa groups used information from the Southern Poverty Law Center to successfully shut down four conferences on the threat of Islam scheduled in Wisconsin and Minnesota last weekend.

The hotels slated for the events were flooded with threatening calls, and the organizers voluntarily canceled one of the events following numerous warnings that it would not be safe. A fifth conference in Des Moines, Iowa carried on in defiance, despite leftists showing up to disrupt the proceedings.

The conferences were hosted by Worldview Weekend, a conservative Christian organization that produces radio and TV shows and sponsors events nationwide. The SPLC posted the locations for these venues, after which Antifa groups urged their members through social media to attend events and swamp the venues with threatening calls and messages.

[….]

The conferences sought to expose how leftists supported by George Soros, the John Templeton Foundation and other donors are intimidating America into silence by labeling anyone who exposes them as “racists,” “Islamophobes” and “white supremacists.” An event last fall featuring this author and DHS whistleblower Philip Haney was canceled by the venue following a similar campaign from Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) operatives.

On that last line, see my post Wednesday on the slick Taneeza Islam (former CAIR-MN civil rights activist) who practiced these same tactics in South Dakota.

Simpson explains what happened and then wraps with this:

Shahram Hadian, a former Muslim and now Christian apologist who heads the Truth In Love project, was slated to speak at a number of the canceled events. He reacted strongly in a video about the cancellations posted on Saturday:

“Who shut us down folks? The Islamo-Marxist-Fascist oppressors in this nation, the same groups that we’ve been traveling around this nation warning you about…. How did that happen? It started with CAIR… the front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. Then they’ve joined with the Southern Poverty Law Center… Then they got Antifa involved… and we know their M.O. – they’re domestic terrorists… If you think we are living in a free nation any more… that this is the land of the free and home of the brave, we better wake up soon. Religious liberty, the right of assembly, the right of our speech, is gone. This is the M.O. now. This is the tactic they are using to shut us down.”

Watch Pastor Shahram Hadian, here:

Simpson continues….

Howse broadcast an hour-long live special Sunday night to describe what happened and the issues that would have been covered in these events.

He said he is considering legal action, among other options, and that he will also be releasing a movie this fall recounting this weekend’s events and many others he has witnessed over the last 12 months.

“The things that are happening represent an existential threat to our rights as Americans and our very way of life,” he said.

Read all of it here.

The greatest threat!

Everyone must make sure to spread this news far and wide through whatever means are available to you because the mainstream media won’t do it!  The threat is real and it is the biggest threat facing America today—the silencing of our voices.

And, I’m going to nag all of you to find avenues of speech for yourselves!

Write blogs, facebook pages, open twitter and gab accounts, create e-mail lists to friends and family, write letters to editors, and if necessary speak in your churches and other civic groups because the more of you willing to speak, the harder it will be for them to silence us all.