Yesterday, I described to you a number of government censorship schemes violating the First Amendment and called the government officials perpetrating them “jackbooted authoritarian government thugs”. You might have thought my language was too harsh. But after seeing the news on this subject in the last 24 hours, I humbly suggest to you my language is not harsh enough.
The Federal Trade Commission demanded Elon Musk “identify all journalists” given access to the Twitter Files, company records showing how Twitter under previous ownership conspired with the government to suppress free speech. The FTC further demanded he explain why he granted them access. Musk responded right away in a tweet: “A shameful case of weaponization of a government agency for political purposes and suppression of the truth!” Got that right. The Twitter Files revealed how the government created blacklists of disfavored accounts, maneuvered to shut down criticism of COVID vaccines, propagate the Trump/Russia collusion hoax, involve intelligence agencies in the suppression of information like Hunter Biden’s laptop, and more.
Identifying journalists was just one of more than 350 demands the FTC made on Elon Musk in his first three months there. The House Weaponization of the Federal Government subcommittee concluded in a report, “These demands have no basis in the FTC’s statutory mission and appear to be the result of partisan pressure to target Twitter and silence Musk.” The report went on to say, ““The FTC’s demands did not occur in a vacuum. They appear to be the result of loud voices on the left—including elected officials—urging the federal government to intervene in Musk’s acquisition and management of the company…. The FTC’s harassment of Twitter is likely due to one fact: Musk’s self-described ‘absolutist’ commitment to free expression in the digital town square.”
Meanwhile, it came to light in the Missouri and Louisiana censorship case that congressional Democrats and the White House threatened social media platforms with loss of their liability shield if they refused to comply with government censorship demands. The demands spanned a range of topics including COVID policies, elections, and Hunter Biden. The shield comes from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and its removal would be an “existential threat” to the company, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has said. Joe Biden said on the campaign trail Zuckerberg should face criminal charges for not censoring campaign ads critical of Biden. After the election, a Biden White House aide slammed Facebook for not moving fast enough to censor. Facebook copiously documented its censorship of supposed ‘misinformation’ for the White House after that. Pressure from the Democrat-controlled House and Senate Intelligence committees led to quick action to take down flagged accounts in the 2018 and 2020 election cycles. A deposition in the lawsuit showed the FBI deliberately gave misleading information to Twitter and others so they would censor stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Still more was revealed yesterday. The Biden White House went to work to censor the COVID revelations of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and other activists just three days after taking power. Within a month, a White House official was badgering Facebook to remove disfavored information about COVID and to describe its removal policies so they could be maximized to remove as much disfavored information as possible. The official chastised Facebook for letting unwanted information go viral and not stopping the accounts making it happen. The official expressed frustration over how Facebook was not removing so-called “bad information” from search results. “Pinterest doesn’t even show you any results other than official information when you search for ‘vaccines.’ I don’t know why you guys can’t figure it out,” the official chided. Another White House official blasted Facebook for not being “straightforward” and only doing the minimum. Then came this warning: “Internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.” ‘We have ways of making you talk.’ The White House also warned Google to play ball and do something about COVID vaccine hesitancy – the Big Guy was watching.
This story’s not over. We’re going to learn more about the authoritarian jackbooted thugs of the federal government who have been working to silence dissent in this country. The Missouri-Louisiana case is cranking up and the House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed the head of the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board at DHS to testify.
The colonies were reluctant to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added explicitly protecting, among other things, the right to free speech. Until the jackbooted thugs succeed in taking the First Amendment off the books, let’s use it to the max and show them they’re not going to get away with silencing dissent. Who the hell do they think they are? This is America.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Skirmish - Liberato.UShttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Skirmish - Liberato.US2023-03-08 15:07:202023-03-08 15:07:20How Jackbooted Censors Get Up and Get Dressed
Over the weekend, far-left agitators allegedly threw Molotov cocktails and launched fireworks at an Atlanta police training facility that has been under construction. Among the 23 people arrested for what police called a “coordinated attack” is Thomas Jurgens, 28, a staff attorney at the SPLC. Following the arrest, Jurgens’ Linkedin page was deleted. Per the New York Post:
Of the 23 people slapped with domestic terrorism charges over the violent protest, Jurgens and only one other man, Jack Beaman, hail from the state of Georgia. Police said the majority of those arrested are from other parts of the US — as well as France and Canada.
The SPLC didn’t immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment in the wake of Jurgens’ arrest. In total, 35 “violent agitators” were nabbed after they attacked the future site of the $90 million police training facility, cops said.
It wasn’t immediately clear if the remainder of those arrested will also be hit with domestic terrorism charges.
During the demonstration over the weekend, protesters allegedly threw Molotov cocktails, fireworks, rocks, and bricks at police officers. Atlanta Police Chief Schierbaum later described it as a “coordinated attack” and that multiple pieces of construction equipment were set on fire.
“This was a very violent attack, very violent attack,” Schierbaum said. “This wasn’t about a public safety training center. This was about anarchy… and we are addressing that quickly.”
Some left-wing agitators even tried blinding police officers by shining green lasers into their eyes.
Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp condemned the violence, calling it an act of “domestic terrorism.”
“As I’ve said before, domestic terrorism will NOT be tolerated in this state,” Kemp said. “We will not rest until those who use violence and intimidation for an extremist end are brought to full justice.”
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote in the Washington Post that the center’s use of “hate” labels destroys public discourse.
“The wickedness of the SPLC’s blacklist lies in the fact that it conflates groups that really do preach hatred, such as the Ku Klux Klan and Nation of Islam, with ones that simply do not share the SPLC’s political preferences,” he wrote. “The obvious goal is to marginalize the organizations in this second category by bullying reporters into avoiding them, scaring away writers and researchers from working for them, and limiting invitations for them to discuss their work.”
In an April 2019 article, PJ Media reported that more than 60 organizations that SPLC had falsely labeled as “hate groups” were considering the possibility of suing SPLC for defamation. The article cited remarks that various noteworthy individuals had recently made about SPLC and its deceitful use of the “hate group” smear as a fundraising tactic. One particularly significant remark came from former SPLC employee Bob Moser, who described SPLC’s annual “hate-group list” as “a masterstroke of [Morris] Dees’ marketing talents” which leads countless “mainstream outlets [to] write about the ‘rising tide of hate’ discovered by the SPLC’s researchers,” and leads reporters to “frequently refer to the list when they write about the groups…”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2023-03-08 06:55:112023-03-08 07:19:54SPLC Attorney Charged with Domestic Terrorism for Rioting with Antifa
As promised, Fox News host Tucker Carlson began publicizing the closed-circuit TV footage from Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021. In the introduction to the footage, Mr Carlson outlines the process and limitations that his producers encountered.
Tucker Carlson states no one from the House of Representatives placed any restrictions on the footage as reviewed. Additionally, Carlson notes that no one at Fox News leadership had any input into the review that his team undertook. As he describes, much of the 40,000 hours of footage was innocuous, empty rooms with CCTV camera footage showing very little. However, the footage that did show events, does not support the “violent insurrectionist” narrative as promoted by the J6 committee.
Here is another lie that was created from whole cloth by the J6 Committee and then broadcast by the White House, legacy media and social media platforms. It involved the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.
The longtime partner of a U.S. Capitol Police officer who died following the Jan. 6. insurrection has sued former President Donald Trump and two rioters for wrongful death.
Sandra Garza, who is representing the estate of Brian Sicknick, claims her partner’s death was “a direct and foreseeable consequence” of Trump’s words that day. She also assigns liability to Julian Elie Khater and George Pierre Tanios, two men accused of assaulting Sicknick with chemical spray during the breach.
The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Washington, came a day before the second anniversary of the attack. The suit seeks at least $10 million in damages from each of the defendants.
BREAKING: Tucker Carlson releases NEW J6 footage that contradicts media reports of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick's death. Footage shows him alive and walking around after the media claimed that he was killed from being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. pic.twitter.com/yfGemTwLy9
The Democrats have since 2016 worked every angle to discredit the MAGA movement in general and President Donald J. Trump in particular. Their efforts began with the false Russia collusion gambit, which has been proven false and made up by the FBI. This was followed by the quid pro quo myth which lead to the impeachment proceedings against President Trump.
The fact is that colluding with Russia and Ukraine and all now know quid pro quo activities involved the Biden family and Democrats.
It now obvious that the traitors in our government form all parties are bent towards lying, cheating and, yes, stealing elections.
QUESTION: How will the traitors steal the Presidential Election in 2024?
ANSWER: Using all proven means available.
We listed the traitor “Dirty Dozen” strategies to steal the 2024 Presidential Election:
Dirty Voter Rolls. There are many states where the voter rolls have not been cleansed of dead people, those who have moved out of state and those who vote in more than one state. Christopher Wright in a column titled Stupid Voter Role Tricks wrote, “Election integrity activists are placing renewed emphasis on cleaning up the voter rolls, and here’s why: no matter what scheme the Democrats come up with to steal elections, at the end of the day they still have to find enough records of voters who haven’t voted to put in enough fake votes to change the results of the election…About 8 percent of the population moves any given year. That’s a lot of voter records just waiting to be picked. The more voters on the rolls who are guaranteed not to vote, the easier it is for the Democrats to commit election fraud, plain and simple… Judicial Watch sued Democrat-run New York City and got a settlement requiring the city to remove over 440,000 ineligible names from the voter rolls and to maintain the rolls in the future. The city had only removed 22 names in the previous six years which is preposterous for a city of five and a half million people…Judicial Watch and another group filed another lawsuit to clean up the rolls in Los Angeles. The suit concluded successfully with Democrat-controlled L.A. County removing 1.2 million ineligible voters from the rolls. The County sent notices to 1.6 million inactive voters who had not voted in two successive federal elections. The County revealed that 643,000 voters stayed on the rolls despite not voting for at least ten years, more inactive voters than anywhere else in the country. Yet, there they were, just waiting for the Democrats to make it look like they voted.”
Mail-in-Ballots. Mail-in-Ballots came into vogue during the Covid pandemic. Many states, with the help of some like Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, sent out millions of ballots to addresses regardless of that person’s eligibility to vote. The Last Refuge wrote, “Since the advent of ballot centric focus through mail-in and collection drop-off processes, votes have become increasingly less valuable amid the organizers who wish to control election outcomes. As a direct and specific result, ballot distribution, assembly, collection and return has become the key to Democrat party success. The effort to attain votes for candidates is less important than the strategy of collecting ballots.”
Mules.True The Vote found that mail-in-ballot drop boxes were used to change the 2020 election. Mules, people who delivered ballots of a questionable nature were filmed dropping these mail-in-ballots in the dead of night. True The Vote in its video exposé 2000 Mules showed how easy it was to commit election fraud in just five counties in five states that flipped the 2020 election from Trump to Biden.
Ballot Harvesting. William Hamilton in a 2022 article titled Ballot Harvesting: How Democracies Perish wrote, “Judging from so many disputed elections and the resulting court cases, there is ample evidence to doubt the outcomes of the 2020 and 2022 elections. The easiest way to understand the overall strategy of the 2020 election is to read Molly Ball’s general explanation in the February 4, 2021 issue of Time Magazine. An accurate title would be: ‘How the Progs Harvested, Manipulated, and Cast Enough Votes to Win.’ Instead, Molly Ball wrote, ‘The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.’ You decide. The Prog victory in 2020, such as it was, rested on the usual ineptitude of many Secretaries of State, the usual failures of the U.S. Post Office, improvements in ‘flaps and seals’ technology, the pandemic-induced flood of mail-in ballots, thousands of unmonitored ballot boxes, the advent of computer software and sophisticated printers capable of producing virtually undetectable counterfeit ballots, the hacking of some voting systems, and most importantly the money to train and hire an army of foot soldiers to pillage unprotected ballot boxes, to go door-to-door, to go to senior centers and nursing homes with offers to ‘help’ homeowners and senior citizens understand complex ballot issues and — here’s the key — to allow the harvesters to gain physical possession of millions of ballots.”
Ranked Choice Voting. In ranked-choice voting, voters get to rank their candidates in order of preference. In other words, you can say who your first-choice candidate would be, followed by the next best candidate, and so on down the list. If a candidate receives more than half of the first-choice votes in the election, that candidate wins—exactly as they would in any other election. If there’s no majority winner (for instance, if the first-choice winner would only represent 43% of the total votes) then the race is decided by an “instant runoff.” Whichever candidate has the fewest votes is eliminated; voters who had chosen that candidate as their first choice have their second choice counted instead. This process goes on until a winner representing more than half of the vote emerges. The Bongino Report reported, “What happens when you combine an all-in or “jungle” primary with ranked-choice voting in the general election? Putting the two modern “innovations” on elections together in Alaska produced this absurd result, in which Republicans lost a House seat despite getting 60% of the vote.”
Electronic Voting Machines. Those counties with electronic voting machines experienced serious errors in both the 2020 Presidential and the 2022 midterm elections. Dominion and electronic voting machines were, after forensic reviews, found to have either failed to count ballots for a candidate and or flipped the vote from one candidate to another candidate. On November 12, 2022 President Donald J. Trump wrote, “So in Maricopa County (AZ) they’re at it again. Voting Machines in large numbers didn’t work, but only in Republican districts. People were forced to wait for hours, then got exhausted or had other things to do and left the voting lines by the thousands. Even Kari Lake was taken to a Liberal Democrat district in order to vote. Others weren’t so luckily. This is a scam and voter fraud, no different than stuffing the ballot boxes. They stole the Electron (sic) from Blake Masters. Do Election over again!” Christopher Wright wrote, “[T]hey keep telling us these machines don’t have modems and can’t connect to the Internet, but a watchdog group in Wisconsin found this is a complete lie. Machines used in the 2020 elections were connected to a nongovernmental IP address called WiscNet in three separate elections, including November 3, 2020. “
Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC). In the article ERIC: The Worm That Got Inside Our Elections Christopher Wright wrote, “Grassroots activists continue to raise questions about ERIC, the Electronic Registration Information Center, and authorities are beginning to respond. On the face of things, ERIC is a private organization that helps its 32 member states clean up and maintain their voter rolls. It compares state voter registration data against motor vehicle licensing information and the Social Security master death file. Then it tells states which voters are dead, have moved out of state, or are registered to vote in more than one state. Critics say ERIC is, at root, nothing more than a partisan get-out-the-vote drive for Democrats. Louisiana withdrew from ERIC last month, citing ‘concerns raised by citizens, government watchdog organizations and media reports about potential questionable funding sources and that possibly partisan actors may have access to ERIC network data for political purposes.’ More recently, Alabama left ERIC. The new Secretary of State said he did not want a private group having access to voter data, including driver’s license numbers, contact information, and partial social security numbers including those of minors. In addition to partisan connections and privacy concerns, critics also say ERIC does a bad job, producing bloated voter rolls in member states. Florida, for example, is a member of ERIC but has more than 100 percent of all possible citizens of voting age on its rolls.”
Campaign Finance Mules.The Gateway Pundit in an article titled “Campaign Finance Mules” Identified in Georgia Senate Race – Democrat Raphael Warnock Received Over $24 Million from Hundreds of UNEMPLOYED Donors Giving Over 358,000 Donations reported, “They say ‘Follow The Money’. So we did, and found a massive number of “Campaign Finance Mules” making hundreds, even thousands of donations per year. NBC recently reported on the donations received in the Georgia runoff for Senator. Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock raised $52.2 million for his re-election between Oct. 20 through Nov. 16, more than doubling the fundraising total of his opponent, Republican Herschel Walker. Warnock, the top fundraising federal candidate of the 2022 election cycle by a long-shot, spent $39.2 million over the same period, which almost doubled Walker’s spend too. The incumbent closed the period with $29.7 million banked away. Walker still raised a significant amount over that fundraising period — $20.9 million. His campaign spent $16.5 million and closed with $9.8 million on hand.”
Growing Influence of Non-Profits in U.S. Elections.The Daily Caller in an article titled The Left’s New Scheme That Threatens Free Elections reported, “Like a bad movie sequel, leftwing nonprofits like the Center for Tech and Civil Life (CTCL) are once again pumping millions of dollars in left-wing “dark money” into election offices across the country. Just like they did in 2020, these groups are looking for ways to skew elections and boost liberal turnout in battleground states. But this time, there’s a twist. CTCL and its allies aren’t just doling out eye-popping grants. They are aiming for nothing less than a shadow takeover of election offices. Through their new $80 million program, called the “U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence,” the left is targeting local election offices. The goal: push liberal voting policies and systematically reshape how our elections are run. Voters need only to look to the contentious 2020 election cycle to appreciate the significance of this program. That year, Mark Zuckerberg pledged more than $400 million to support election offices during the pandemic. But he didn’t give the money to election offices directly. Instead, he gave the funds to left-wing nonprofits like CTCL. CTCL then directed these “Zuck Bucks” disproportionately to cities and counties that voted Democratic.”
The Growing Influence of Foreign Actors in U.S. Elections.The Daily Caller in an article titled Chinese Operatives Ran A Massive TikTok Campaign To Help Dems In The Midterm Elections reported, “TikTok accounts operating as voices of Chinese state media promoted messages that appeared to denigrate Republican candidates and favor Democratic ones ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, according to a Forbes investigation. While the Chinese-owned social media app has verbally affirmed the need to crack down on election disinformation and foreign interference, several news-oriented accounts failed to disclose their affiliation with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) state-owned media on the platform, Forbes found. The accounts racked up tens of millions views on posts that covered divisive topics, such as abortion and race, as well as critical clips that mostly targeted Republican candidates ahead of the 2022 midterms. ‘This opens a new dimension for conversation about TikTok,’ Conor Healy, director of government research at surveillance research group IPVM, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The accounts are managed by MediaLinks TV, which registered as a foreign agent for China with the Treasury Department in 2019 and distributes the U.S. branch of China Central Television (CCTV), CGTN, according to the company’s LinkedIn page. MediaLinks also operates the CCTV and CGTN apps, according to Apple.”
Governors must dedicate themselves to their people and empower them to make decisions that are right for themselves, their families and the community. The key word is responsibility. Taking responsibility for one’s actions is key and this ends up in how elections are conducted and their consequences.
“Live free or die” is not just a slogan it’s the truth! Today telling the truth has become a revolutionary act.
Please share this column with your family, friends your elected leaders from school boards, to the City and County Commissions, to your State Legislators to your Governor, to your member of Congress in Washington, D.C. and on your social media sites.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2023-03-07 09:57:262023-03-16 06:24:46It Was All Arranged and Controlled to Achieve a Desired Overall Effect to Undermine the MAGA Movement
Fox News host Tucker Carlson said that his show will air Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol footage this week and claimed it will show that federal and congressional officials “are lying” to Americans.
“The defenders of democracy are defending democracy again,” the Fox News host said last week. “They’re telling you it’s really, really dangerous. And anyone would get to see the thousands of hours of surveillance footage from January 6, which has been hidden from the public for two years as a tiny group of people gets to make up stories about what happened that day and change the country on the basis of those stories.”
“How does that work exactly?” he asked. “Well, it’s not democracy, of course. It’s building a bulwark against your lies being revealed. And they are lying. And we know that because we’ve been looking at the tape.”
BREAKING: Tucker Carlson releases NEW J6 footage that contradicts media reports of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick's death. Footage shows him alive and walking around after the media claimed that he was killed from being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. pic.twitter.com/yfGemTwLy9
Rabbi Eitan Shnerb was hiking to a spring with his son Dvir and his daughter Rina when the bomb went off. For a moment, as he described it in the hospital, everything went black. Then, badly wounded, he saw that the two teenagers were bleeding. Rabbi Shnerb was a trained paramedic. He saw that Rina, his 17-year-old daughter, had absorbed most of the blast. He kissed her on the forehead. And then he turned his Tzizit, the biblical garment that Orthodox Jewish men wear, into a tourniquet for his 19-year-old son to stop the bleeding.
Dvir told his father that he couldn’t breathe and passed out. His daughter was already dead.
“I wanted to believe it was just a dream,” Rabbi Shnerb said from his hospital bed. “I have experienced several bombs in my life and been saved, thank God, but this one got us,..I immediately called to Rina, shouting ‘Rina, Rina,’ I looked down and saw that she was not alive.”
Rabbi Shnerb had stopped a terrorist attack earlier this year by two armed attackers. This time he had not seen the explosion coming.
The terrorist group behind the 2019 terrorist attack was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. And the IRS is accused of allowing it to fundraise through a leftist nonprofit group.
One name that keeps coming up in the Freedom Center’s investigations of nonprofits is the Alliance for Global Justice. AFGJ was spun off from the Nicaragua Network which had been set up to support the Sandinista Marxist terror regime. It went on to operate the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign in support of the narcosocialist Maduro regime in that country.
While the IRS has harassed pro-Israel groups and interrogated them about their views, it has apparently never found the time to ask the AFGJ about its support for enemy nations. It currently features a commemoration of Chavez’s legacy in support of a regime whose bosses are wanted criminals for their role in a cartel smuggling cocaine into the United States.
AFGJ’s backers include George Soros, Tides, the Ben and Jerry’s Foundation, and other wealthy leftists, and it has used its status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to offer fiscal sponsorship to some of the worst of the worst close to home. The 130 groups it sponsors include several Black Lives Matter chapters, the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition in support of a cop killer, pro-illegal alien groups, as well as several brail funds whose mission is freeing rioters and criminals.
Some of these groups might not be able to obtain nonprofit status on their own, but benefit from the fiscal sponsorship of the Alliance for Global Justice.which allows them to accept tax-deductible contributions. When Refuse Fascism, a group linked by some to Antifa and which has defended Antifa violence, solicits donations, it does so using the Action Network, a platform utilized by both Antifa and the DNC, and directs tax-deductible donations through AFGJ.
The same is true of the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network which asks supporters to direct checks to AFGJ. Samidoun does not bother to disguise what it is. It describes terrorists as “resistance fighters” and “martyrs”, and urges support for the “resistance”. The cheerleading for terrorists is accompanied by a call, “Make your US tax-deductible donation today, and donate safely and securely from around the world.”
The AFGJ states that, “Fiscal sponsorship services are offered to grassroots non-profits that agree with the AFGJ vision and mission statements.” Does that include terrorists?
After the murder of Rina Shnerb, Israel arrested members of a PFLP terror network embedded inside nonprofit groups. Israel designated Samidoun as a subsidiary of the PFLP terrorist organization. Multiple PFLP figures have been accused of serving leadership roles in Samidoun including its executive director, former vice chair, and multiple coordinators.
“AfGJ cannot accept credit donations—and neither can the 140 organizations that rely on AfGJ to provide them with fiscal sponsorship,” the leftist group cautions.
While AFGJ is running low on online sites willing to process donations to them, the IRS has yet to take any action. The Zachor Legal Institute, a pro-Israel group fighting BDS, filed an IRS complaint and directed a letter to the DOJ noting that the “PFLP has built a financial system supported by an infrastructure of the Seven PFLP Proxies who raise money on various humanitarian pretexts” while “directing money to the PFLP.”
And yet the odds of the IRS taking action are slim. Even though the PFLP was designated as one of the terrorist groups listed by President George W. Bush after September 11, it was less difficult for Zachor and conservative media to persuade financial services companies to stop processing donations for AFGJ than to get the IRS to enforce tax code regulations and the law.
AFGJ informed the IRS that its mission is to “achieve social change and economic justice”. In reality it has helped unleash violence at home and abroad. The beneficiaries include BLM’s Louisville Community Bail Fund which bailed out Quintez Brown, a Black Lives Matter activist, who walked into the campaign office of a Louisville political candidate and opened fire.
While payment processors have cut off the Alliance for Global Justice, the IRS has yet to act. After over two decades, the IRS has shown no interest in taking action even as the AFGJ continues to act as a fiscal sponsor for groups that would not qualify for nonprofit status. The fiscal sponsorship loophole continues to be abused to fund everything including terrorism.
The Freedom Center’s pamphlet, Internal Radical Service by David Horowitz and John Perazzo, has exposed how the IRS routinely allows leftist nonprofits to violate tax codes and the law. The fiscal sponsorship loophole is widely used by radical leftists to make illegal activity tax deductible. Tax code regulations state that “exempt purposes may generally be equated with the public good, and violations of law are the antithesis of the public good”. They warn that, “violation of constitutionally valid laws is inconsistent with exemption under IRC 501(c)(3)” and that “planned activities that violate laws are not in furtherance of a charitable purpose”.
Terrorism is one of the most blatant possible examples of behavior at odds with the public good.
While the IRS is warning waiters to report their tips, it allows terrorists to benefit from tax deductible money. Payment processors have shown that they have a higher level of compliance with the law than the IRS. When the IRS refuses to enforce the law while demanding that everyone abide by it, that is a culture of lawlessness and, in this case, it’s costing lives.
TALLAHASSEE, FLA – Today, Secretary of State Cord Byrd notified the Electronic Registration Information Center, Inc. (ERIC), that Florida is terminating its ERIC Membership. Today’s announcement follows efforts led by Florida over the past year to reform ERIC through attempts to secure data and eliminate ERIC’s partisan tendencies, all of which were rejected. Withdrawing from ERIC will ensure the data privacy of Florida voters is protected. Florida is joined in withdrawing from ERIC Membership today by the states of Missouri and West Virginia.
“As Secretary of State, I have an obligation to protect the personal information of Florida’s citizens, which the ERIC agreement requires us to share,” said Secretary of State, Cord Byrd. “Florida has tried to back reforms to increase protections, but these protections were refused. Therefore, we have lost confidence in ERIC.”
In 2022, a working group of ERIC member states was formed and proposed necessary changes to the ERIC Membership agreement. These reforms would have eliminated concerns about ERIC’s potential partisan leanings, and made the information shared with ERIC more secure.
Specifically, Florida backed the working group’s proposals including increased protections for confidential voter information and limiting the power of ex-officio partisan members of the ERIC board. These ex-officio partisan members are not representatives of specific states and have undue influence over the organization and its decisions.
However, given the unwillingness of ERIC to address these significant issues of electoral integrity, it is in the best interest of Florida, its citizens, and its voters to withdraw its membership from ERIC.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2023-03-07 05:19:092023-03-07 09:25:13Florida Withdraws From Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)
Elections have consequences. Big box retailers forced out of Democrat-controlled Portland.
Walmart announced it is permanently closing all of its locations in Portland, Oregon.
You reap what you vote.
The announcements come just a few months after the Walmart CEO warned stores could close and prices could increase in light of sky-high retail crimes affecting stores across the country.
“Theft is an issue. It’s higher than what it has historically been,” Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said in December on CNBC. He added that “prices will be higher and/or stores will close” if authorities don’t crack down on prosecuting shoplifting crimes.
By: Erica Carlin, Liberty One News, march 3, 2023:
Cities under Democrat rule are rapidly becoming lawless. Nowhere is this more evident than in Portland, Oregon, where Mayor Ted Wheeler has refused Nike’s request for help with theft in its Northeast store and Walmart has been forced to close its remaining stores in the city.
The situation at Nike’s store is emblematic of the issues facing businesses in liberal-run cities. The store has been closed for months due to rampant retail theft and Nike asked Mayor Wheeler if the city could either pay to hire additional cops to patrol the area or pay off-duty cops to do so.
But Wheeler refused, citing the city’s “significant personnel constraint” as a result of the city’s “brush with defunding the police”—a ludicrous idea that Portland embraced in 2020, sending experienced officers running for the exits.
Instead, he asked Nike to re-open its store “on a limited basis” and suggested that the company may be part of the problem by refusing to allow its security guards to detain shoplifters. Of course, Nike won’t do that for fear of liability, and it’s no wonder Amazon hasn’t wiped out 100% of local businesses trying to deal with this nonsense.
It’s a similar story for Walmart. The retail giant recently confirmed that it is closing all remaining stores in Portland due to the rise of theft. Walmart CEO Doug McMillon warned in December that the company might have to close stores or raise prices if things didn’t improve.
Before Donald Trump was even elected president and throughout the entire period of his administration, the Leftist establishment that is entrenched in Washington officialdom and among the propaganda outlets that are known as the major news organizations inundated us with nonsense about how he had improperly colluded with Russia in order to gain the White House, and was still in Vladimir Putin’s pocket. There was, as is now well-known, nothing whatsoever to it; it was all a hoax designed to discredit Trump and destroy his presidency, although like the Japanese soldiers found hiding in the woods in the 1970s, not knowing that the war was over, there are still some holdouts on the far Left who insist it was all true. And actually it was, but not of Donald Trump. If you want actual Russian collusion, take a look at Old Joe Biden.
The New York Post reported Thursday that “two Russian billionaires who have managed to dodge US sanctions over Moscow’s year-old invasion of Ukraine went property shopping with Hunter Biden, dined with then-Vice President Joe Biden, and discussed ‘favors’ they might swap.” That’s collusion for you, but of course the Washington establishment that went after Trump with such vicious ferocity over nothing whatsoever is entirely indifferent to this fresh evidence that the demented corruptocrat they installed in the White House is as crooked as the day is long. Russian collusion is only of interest to this establishment when it can be used as a political tool; when people on their side do it, it’s entirely beneath notice.
Well, almost entirely. The Biden regime’s Treasury Department did take notice long enough on Friday to spare two Russian pals of Joe and Hunter, Yelena Baturina and Vladimir Yevtushenkov, from “a fresh batch of sanctions.” The UK and Australia have sanctioned Yevtushenkov, but not the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. And with a level of understatement that was positively Hemingwayesque, an anonymous source whom the Post says has “firsthand knowledge of the business relationship between Hunter Biden and Yevtushenkov,” says: “I think it’s very fishy.”
So does Michael McFaul, who is such a right-wing Trumpian ideologue that he served as Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia. “I think he should be sanctioned,” McFaul said of Yevtushenkov. “I don’t understand why he has not been.”
I do, Mike. It’s really quite simple. Yevtushenkov hasn’t been sanctioned because he had the good judgment to do business with Hunter and Joe Biden. This gives the Russian an all-purpose Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, as the Washington establishment will do anything it can possibly do to shield the Bidens from the consequences of their corrupt dealings, and to keep the American people from discovering just how crooked the man who pretends to be president really is.
And he is. Yevtushenkov “admitted last year he met with Hunter Biden for breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton in Manhattan on March 14, 2012 — but denied any further contact.” He was, the terminally naïve will be surprised to learn, lying: “emails and calendar entries from Hunter’s former laptop show that they were set to meet again on Jan. 27, 2013, for dinner at DC’s Cafe Milano before looking at a commercial real estate development the next day near Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia.” The Post’s source recounted: that he asked Yevtushenkov why he was meeting with Hunter, and the Russian billionaire replied: “I think it would be good to have a good relationship with this guy … maybe he can do a favor for us and we can do a favor for him.” The source added: “It was a complete quid pro quo that he was going in for.” Collusion and quid pro quo! It looks as if yet again the Left has engaged in the old tactic of accusing the other side of that which they are guilty of doing. The source added: “I told him that’s not the way it works in America, [but] he basically laughed at me and told me I was so naïve.”
Indeed. And wait, there’s more: “A different source, meanwhile, told The Post he vividly recalled Baturina and her husband, ex-Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, looking ‘like an odd couple’ at a now-infamous, intimate dinner with Hunter and his father, the then-vice president.” Also at the dinner was “Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive at Ukrainian energy company Burisma, which paid Hunter up to $1 million per year beginning in 2014 while his VP dad controlled the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy. Pozharskyi emailed Hunter the next day to thank him for ‘giving an opportunity to meet your father.’”
But Old Joe Biden knows how the game is played. He “called the report a false ‘Russian plant’ at the time and social media platforms Twitter and Facebook initially censored it.” Even now, he will face no political consequences for all this Russian collusion. That’s only for presidents who dare to put America first.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2023-03-05 07:35:372023-03-06 08:17:07Here’s Your Russian Collusion: Russian Billionaires Did Big Business with Hunter Biden, Dined with Joe, Dodge Sanctions
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., pinned blame on the government for failing to stop the inflow of illicit drugs into America during a House hearing on the border crisis. Her comments were in response to testimony from Rebecca Kiessling, whose two sons died on July 29, 2020, from fentanyl poisoning.
“This government has failed you, and it’s failing American families, and it’s failing, most of all, it’s failing our children and our young people,” Greene said during the hearing on Tuesday. “Listen to this mother, who lost two children to fentanyl poisoning, tell the truth about both of her son’s murders because of the Biden administrations refusal to secure our border and stop the Cartel’s from murdering Americans everyday by Chinese fentanyl,” Greene tweeted after the hearing.
“Isn’t [Marjorie Taylor Greene] amazing? Oof,” Biden says, as he laughed. “I should digress, probably,I’ve read, she, she was very specific recently, saying that a mom, a poor mother who lost two kids to fentanyl, that, that I killed her sons. Well, the interesting thing is that fentanyl they took came during the last administration,” Biden said, still laughing.
“Shameful and embarrassing,” Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., commented on the video.
Kiessling said during the hearing that her sons’ deaths were the result of a “murder,” not an overdose. “I don’t use the term ‘drug overdose‘ because this was not an overdose. This was murder,” she said. “This is a war. Act like it. Do something.”
Biden’s Seventh Day in Office: 4 Executive Actions Related to Racial Equity
On January 26, 2021, President Biden signed 4 executive actions — including 1 executive order and 3 memoranda — related to the theme of racial “equity.” In the course of the remarks he made prior to signing the orders, Biden said:
“In my campaign for President, I made it very clear that the moment had arrived as a nation where we face deep racial inequities in America and system- — systemic racism that has plagued our nation for far, far too long. I said it over the course of the past year that the blinders had been taken come off the nation of the American people. What many Americans didn’t see, or had simply refused to see, couldn’t be ignored any longer. Those 8 minutes and 46 seconds that took George Floyd’s life opened the eyes of millions of Americans and millions of people around — all over the world. It was the knee on the neck of justice, and it wouldn’t be forgotten. It stirred the conscience of tens of millions of Americans, and, in my view, it marked a turning point in this country’s attitude toward racial justice.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Discover The Networkshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDiscover The Networks2023-03-03 06:31:412023-03-03 06:41:39Biden Laughs While Discussing Mom Who Lost 2 Kids to Fentanyl
The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) said Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York may have violated “standards of conduct” and “federal law” over “impermissible gifts” relating to her appearance at the 2021 Met Gala, according to a release by the House Ethics Committee.
“Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have accepted impermissible gifts associated with her attendance at the Met Gala in 2021,” the OCE report said. “If Rep. Ocasio-Cortez accepted impermissible gifts, then she may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.”
🚨BREAKING: The Office of Congressional Ethics has released a statement in which they say there is "substantial reason to believe" AOC "accepted impermissible associated with her attendance at the Met Gala in 2021" that violated "standards of conduct and federal law." pic.twitter.com/cR215TfY6J
Ocasio-Cortez wore a dress with the words “Tax the Rich” on it during the ritzy gala in September 2021, drawing an ethics complaint accusing her of improperly accepting free tickets to the event, which reportedly start at $35,000. Members of the House of Representatives may accept gifts of either “nominal value” or from relatives and friends, but any gift over $250 requires written permission from the House Ethics Committee.
“While regrettable, this matter definitively does not rise to the level of a violation of House Rules or of federal law,” an attorney for Rep. Ocasio-Cortez wrote to the House Ethics Committee.
“Though no Ethics violation has been found, the Office of Congressional Ethics (“OCE”) did identify that there were delays in paying vendors for costs associated with the Congresswoman’s attendance at the Met Gala,” Ocasio-Cortez’s office said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The Congresswoman finds these delays unacceptable, and she has taken several steps to ensure nothing of this nature will happen again.”
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-03-03 06:18:352023-03-03 06:18:35AOC Likely Violated Federal Law With Met Gala Theatrics, Congressional Ethics Office Says
SPLC defines “hate groups” as those that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics” — i.e., nationality, ethnicity, race, physical appearance, or sexual orientation. But the Center does not restrict its definition of “hate group activities” merely to violent actions, but rather, it indicates that they “can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing”; indeed, some of the hate “groups” identified by SPLC are merely websites, publications, record labels, religious sects, or single-author blogs.
In 2018, SPLC identified 1,020 active “hate groups” in the United States. Asserting that the vast majority of such organizations are “right wing,” the Center says they include “the Ku Klux Klan,” “the neo-Nazi movement,” “neo-Confederates,” “racist skinheads,” “antigovernment militias,” “Christian Identity adherents,” and a variety of “anti-immigrant,” “anti-LGBT,” “anti-Muslim,” and “alternative Right” groups. While also identifying a tiny smattering of black separatist entities — such as the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party — as hate groups, SPLC took pains to point out that black organizations should be judged by a different standard than their white counterparts, because “much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism.” Moreover, SPLC rarely made mention of these black groups in its emails, press releases, and fundraising appeals that warned of the rising tide of “hate” in America. (NOTE: In 2021, SPLC stopped including black separatist organizations in its list of “hate groups,” on the premise that: (a) they “are not made up of only Black individuals,” and (b) “Black separatism was born out of valid anger against very real historical and systemic oppression.”
The manner in which SPLC counts the number of active “hate groups” in the United States has evolved over the years. In 1997, for instance, the Center’s hate-group tally received a substantial boost from a newly instituted procedure which conveyed the impression that “hate” in America was rising at an unprecedented rate. That year, the Center’s “Intelligence Project” began counting all known chapters or branches of “hate” organizations as separate entities, whereas it had previously tallied them collectively as a single entity. Thus, in 1998 the Council of Conservative Citizens (and its 33 chapters) accounted for more than half of the SPLC hate-group list’s growth over the previous year. Similarly, in 2000, more than 60% of the alleged increase in the nationwide hate-group tally was due to the first-time inclusion of the League of the South and its 90-plus chapters. By 2009, just 4 autonomous organizations and their many branches accounted for fully 229 separate “hate groups” — approximately one-fourth of all the entries in SPLC’s catalog.
In 2013, SPLC claimed that from 2000 to 2012, the number of hate groups in the U.S. had increased by 67% — a surge allegedly “fueled by anger and fear over the nation’s ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation’s first African-American president” — i.e., Barack Obama. In other words, white Americans’ reflexive bigotry had allegedly triggered a host of hate-filled responses to the increased political and cultural influence wielded by nonwhites. And America’s racists, by SPLC’s calculus, are almost unanimously conservatives — as evidenced by the caption featured in the “Hatewatch” section of the Center’s website: “Hatewatch monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right.” The radical left gets no mention at all.
SPLC’s “hate group” counts have been shown to be devoid of legitimacy a number of times. Laird Wilcox — a researcher specializing in the study of political fringe movements — reports that many SPLC-designated “hate groups” are untraceable, due either to their inactivity or nonexistence. After analyzing the SPLC Klanwatch Project’s list of 346 “white supremacist groups” in 1992, for instance, Wilcox concluded that in fact there were only “about 50” such groups “that are objectively significant, are actually functioning and have more than a handful of real numbers — not post office box ‘groups’ or two-man local chapters.”
In 2002, the Cleveland Scene investigated an SPLC claim that there were 40 active “hate or militia groups” in Ohio. Ultimately the publication concluded that “while a few groups on the monitors’ lists warrant attention, most have dissolved or amount to little more than a guy with a copy of Mein Kampf and a Yahoo! Account.” “Between their peculiar theories and a proclivity for self-destruction,” added the paper, “a majority of white-nationalist groups would have trouble staging a poker game, let alone a revolution.”
Indeed, SPLC research chief Mark Potok has acknowledged: “The SPLC does not attempt to confirm the validity of each listing…. When a group claims chapters in a given place, we list them unless we have a reason to believe it [the claim] is false.” Emphasizing the difficulty of actually tracking down hate groups, Potok added: “Very frequently, authorities in a given community are surprised to find a hate group operating in their town or operating a mailbox, especially if it turns out to be a drop box. Especially in a state like Vermont, where the Klan is not very popular, you won’t see your local Klan in public. Just because local police and local anti-racism groups don’t know about it does not make it not true.” According to Laird Wilcox, “In private [Potok] concedes that there’s no overwhelming threat from the far right and in public [he] says something altogether different.” This, Wilcox explains, is because “professionally [Potok] is just a shill. It’s his job. That’s what he’s paid for.”
On another occasion, when SPLC falsely reported that a Klan group had gained a foothold in Larkin, Kansas, Wilcox explained: “What happened in this case is that someone rented a P.O. box for a bogus Ku Klux Klan group and then kept the rent paid on it for years, thus allowing [SPLC] to list Larkin as having a ‘KKK presence’ … This was pure disinformation and an example of the terrible things the SPLC does in its campaign to keep the money rolling in from frightened liberals and blacks.” In 2005, Wilcox reported: “Several years ago with minimal effort I went through a list of 800-plus ‘hate groups’ published by the SPLC and determined that over half of them were either non-existent, existed in name only, or were inactive.”
JoAnn Wypijewski, who writes for the far-left Nation magazine, once wrote: “No one has been more assiduous in inflating the profile of [hate] groups than [SPLC’s] millionaire huckster, Morris Dees, who in 1999 began a begging [fundraising] letter, ‘Dear Friend, The danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.’” To put Dees’ claim in perspective, the Klan at that time consisted of no more than 3,000 people nationwide — a far cry from the 4 million members it had boasted in the 1920s. Nonetheless, notes Wypijewski, “Dees would have his donors believe” that cadres of “militia nuts” are “lurking around every corner.”
In a similar vein, the late left-wing journalist Alexander Cockburn wrote in 2007: “I’ve long regarded Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center as collectively one of the greatest frauds in American life.” In 2009 Cockburn called Dees the “arch-salesman of hate-mongering,” a man who profited by “selling the notion there’s a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with massed legions of haters, ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of Mein Kampftucked under one arm and a Bible under the other.” “Ever since 1971,” added Cockburn, “U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with [Dees’] fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America.”
To foment such fear, SPLC has shown itself to be capable of promoting a host of egregious falsehoods. For example, in the mid-1990s — by which time most Americans understood that the Ku Klux Klan had degenerated into a virtual non-entity — SPLC, lest its fundraising begin to dry up, warned of an imminent, rising new menace. To fulfill that prophecy, the Center helped lead an elaborate campaign denouncing an epidemic of racially motivated arsons that purportedly had been targeting black churches across the South. A national database search in July 1996 found that more than 2,200 news articles had been written about these black church burnings. Eventually, however, it was learned that in fact the incidence of such fires had increased only slightly, and temporarily, above their historically low levels. Moreover, on a per capita basis, black church fires continued to be significantly less common than white church fires. By the end of 1998, just three of the more than seventy black church fires investigated by the Justice Department could be tied to racial motives. The National Church Arson Task Force likewise found few racial links. It turned out, in fact, that a number of the arsonists responsible for the infamous black church fires were themselves African Americans.
But none of this stopped SPLC from relentlessly advancing its white-arson-epidemic theory. As former SPLC lawyer Gloria Browne once explained, SPLC’s programs are calculated to cash in on “black pain and white guilt.”
Contrary to SPLC’s persistent claims about the ubiquity of “hate groups” and their nefarious activities, the City Journal noted in July 2017 that “’hate crimes,’ as defined and reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have declined over the past decade to fewer than 6,000 incidents a year, a modest number in a country with 326 million people.” The Journal further pointed out that: “The principal threats of radical extremism in the United States today are jihadist attacks (radical Islam), militant anti-police rioters (such as Black Lives Matter), and masked Antifa (so-called ‘anti-fascist’) mobs shutting down free speech on college campuses and violently protesting the election of President Donald J. Trump, while the greatest perpetrators of violence in America are criminal street gangs — including the deadly MS-13 — that have turned some of our inner cities into war zones.”
Falsely Smearing Conservatives as “Haters”
Regardless of how dramatically SPLC overstates their numbers, white racists like neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and skinheads indisputably deserve the “hate group” label. But the Center extends that designation also to conservative and libertarian organizations that harbor no ill will against any demographic group, and that merely hold positions contrary to those of SPLC on issues of social or political import.
As syndicated columnist Don Feder writes: “What makes the Southern Poverty Law Center particularly odious is its habit of taking legitimate conservatives and jumbling them with genuine hate groups (the Klan, Aryan Nation, skinheads, etc.), to make it appear that there’s a logical relationship between, say, opposing affirmative action and lynching, or demands for an end to government services for illegal aliens and attacks on dark-skinned immigrants.”
The City Journal puts it this way: “In the popular perception, ‘hate group’ is a label that appropriately describes the KKK, neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, and similar groups — and the SPLC does in fact label them as such — but the SPLC misleadingly lumps these odious groups together with mainstream organizations with which it disagrees, solely because of their views regarding, among other issues, LGBT rights, immigration policy, and opposition to Sharia Law.”
Yet anotherCity Journal piece says: “[R]easoned discourse requires that disagreement be expressed through facts and argument, not pejorative name-calling, innuendo, and guilt by association. The SPLC deliberately blurs the distinction between true hate groups, peaceful activists, and reputable organizations with which it disagrees…. What many of the individuals and groups condemned by the SPLC have in common is a conservative orientation. Favoring traditional marriage becomes the moral equivalent of cross-burning; opposing illegal immigration or amnesty for illegal immigrants equates to advocating genocide; resisting the spread of radical Islam invokes Timothy McVeigh; and anti-tax Tea Party groups are now indistinguishable from armed militias or Holocaust deniers. Thus, dissent is de-legitimatized, and political foes are demonized. All those who oppose the Left are, by definition, ‘fascists,’ ‘white nationalists,’ ‘Islamophobes,’ ‘hate groups,’ or ‘extremists.’”
In a 2016 survey, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that no fewer than 63 of the organizations that SPLC identified as “hate groups” or “extremist groups” were actually IRS-approved charities.
One noteworthy organization that SPLC once placed in its cross hairs was the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which the Center, in a 2003 report authored by researcher/writer Chip Berlet, identified as part of “an array of right-wing foundations and think tanks [that] support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.” Especially objectionable to SPLC was AEI fellow Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian-born scholar (and former Reagan Administration adviser) “whose views,” according to Berlet, “are seen by many as bigoted or even racist.” Specifically, D’Souza has written that affirmative action is an unjust, counterproductive policy; that “many liberals have been peculiarly blind about black racism”; that “virtually all contemporary liberal assumptions about the origin of racism … and what to do about it are wrong”; and that “the civil-rights industry … now has a vested interest in the persistence of the ghetto, because the miseries of poor blacks are the best advertisement for continuing programs of racial preference and set-asides.” “D’Souza has suggested,” said Berlet incredulously, “that civil rights activists actually help perpetuate racial tensions and division in the United States.” Such sentiments — notwithstanding the repeatedly divisive rhetoric and actions of racial arsonists like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and the late Julian Bond — are anathema to an organization whose income stream is largely dependent upon an ability to perpetuate public angst over black suffering.
Berlet’s report likewise denounced another AEI-sponsored scholar, Charles Murray — a Bradley Foundation research fellow who in 1994 co-authored The Bell Curve, which SPLC described as “a book that argues that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to whites and that most social welfare and affirmative action programs are doomed to failure as a result.” Addressing critiques such as this, Hoover Institution scholar Thomas Sowell wrote that widespread “demonization” by “demagogues” who were interested only in hearing “what they want to hear,” had rendered The Bell Curve “one of the most misrepresented books of our time.”
In SPLC’s 2003 report as well, Berlet charged that conservative author David Horowitz “has blamed slavery on ‘black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs’ — a selective rewriting of history.” To this, Horowitz replied:
“I never in my life blamed slavery on black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs.’ What idiot would not know that white Europeans conducted the Atlantic Slave Trade, which trafficked in 11 million black African chattel? The sentence Berlet mangles is not a historical statement about slavery but a polemical response to the proponents of reparations who are demanding that only whites pay blacks for an institution—slavery—that has been eradicated in the western world (but not Arab and black Africa) for more than 100 years. It is intended to remind people that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers—not to blame Africans and Arabs for sole responsibility for slavery.”
Berlet also took issue with what he called Horowitz’s “false” claim that “there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians — Englishmen and Americans — created one.” “Critics note,” Berlet added, “that Horowitz is ignoring everything from the slave revolt led by Spartacus against the Romans and Moses’ rebellion against the Pharaoh to the role of American blacks in the abolition movement.” And yet, Horowitz had already anticipated and discredited these very charges two years earlier, in his 2001 book Uncivil Wars: The Controversy About Slavery, wherein he wrote:
“For thousands of years, until the end of the Eighteenth Century, slavery had been considered a normal institution of human societies. In all that time, no group had arisen to challenge its legitimacy. Of course, there were many slave revolts from the times of Moses and Spartacus, in which those who had been enslaved sought to gain their freedom. But that was not the point. The freedom they had sought was their own. They did not revolt against the institution of slavery as such. What had happened in the English-speaking countries at the dawn of the American Republican was entirely unique. Before then, no one had thought to form a movement dedicated to the belief that the institution of slavery was itself immoral. What was important in this historical fact was that it showed that white Europeans who were the target of the reparations indictment had played a pivotal role in the emancipation from slavery.”
In yet another illustration of SPLC’s propensity for detecting “hate” virtually everywhere, the Center in 2006 issued a report claiming that “large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists continue to infiltrate” the U.S. armed services, as one might expect to occur in a nation rife with unbridled bigotry. Echoing the claims in that report, which were parroted repeatedly by major media outlets across the country, the Department of Homeland Security subsequently (in 2009) warned that American soldiers returning from active duty in Iraq might be particularly susceptible to recruitment and radicalization by “right-wing extremists,” and thus could present a terror threat worth monitoring.
SPLC likewise saw the 2010 ascendancy of the Tea Party movement, which advocated government fiscal responsibility and tax cuts, as an odious development. In a piece titled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism,” SPLC’s Intelligence Report claimed that the movement was “shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories, and racism.”
SPLC has also identified many individuals as “haters” and “extremists.” In 2016, for instance, the Center classified Ben Carson, the retired pediatric brain surgeon who had run in that year’s Republican presidential primaries and was later appointed as the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development by President Donald Trump, as an “extremist” because of his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Other conservatives who have been branded as “haters” and “extremists” by SPLC include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim who now advocates to protect Muslim women from such widespread Islamic practices as forced marriage, honor violence, child marriage, and genital mutilation; former Cincinnati mayor and Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell; Accuracy In Media director Cliff Kincaid; Family Research Council vice president and former U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Jerry Boykin; WorldNetDaily editor-in-chief Joseph Farah; Rafael Cruz (a Cuban immigrant and the father of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz); Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman; Federation for American Immigration Reform president Dan Stein; philanthropist Ron Unz; scholar and bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza; Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian; former U.S. senator and governor George Allen; U.S. attorney general and former senator Jeff Sessions; former congressman Tom Tancredo; and former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul.
One of SPLC’s bedrock beliefs is its conviction that the United States, in addition to being inherently racist, is also a homophobic nation that countenances all manner of injustice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people — who, according to the Center, are “far more likely to be victims of a violent hate crime than any other minority group in the United States.” SPLC depicts anyone objecting to transformative cultural changes involving homosexuals — such as gay marriage — as a “hate” monger whose opinions have no more legitimacy than those of an Aryan militia. Thus does the Center list the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) as a hate group, chiefly because of its opposition to same-sex marriage and its view that homosexuality is an “unnatural” condition “associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.” SPLC president Richard Cohen has defended the designation of FRC as a hate group on grounds that “it traffics in incendiary name-calling.” It should be noted that FRC expresses no malice at all toward homosexuals, as demonstrated not only by its professed “sympathy” for “those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions,” but also by its call for “every effort … to assist such persons to overcome those attractions.”
On August 15, 2012, SPLC’s allegations about FRC had serious ramifications. That morning, a domestic terrorist named Floyd Corkins walked into FRC’s Washington, DC headquarters carrying a pistol, 100 rounds of ammunition, and a knapsack filled with 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. (The sandwiches were significant because in June and July of that year, Chick-fil-A’s chief operating officer had made some public statements supporting the traditional family structure and opposing gay marriage.) Corkins, who later acknowledged that he had intended “to kill people in the [FRC] building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face,” was prevented from carrying out his deadly plan by FRC buildings operations manager Leo Johnson, who physically tackled him. When an FBI agent subsequently asked Corkins why he had chosen to target FRC, he replied: “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.”
Below is a list of additional noteworthy organizations that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as Anti-LGBT hate groups. While these groups clearly take moral and political positions that differ from those of SPLC, they do not preach hate against any group of people for any reason:
Liberty Counsel is a self-described “Christian ministry” which believes that “every person is created in the image of God and should be treated with dignity and respect”; explicitly condemns “any person or group that advocates or promotes violence”; is “unshakably dedicated to protecting and defending human life, from the moment of conception until natural death”; affirms that marriage is “a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life”; asserts that “children do best in a home with a mom and a dad”; and defends Christians who believe that their rights to religious expression are being abrogated by secular society. But according to SPLC, Liberty Counsel seeks “to ensure that Christians can continue to engage in anti-LGBT discrimination in places of business under the guise of ‘religious liberty,’” and “attempts to enforce the idea that Christian beliefs and law trump all other law.” SPLC has also objected to Liberty Counsel’s “reputation for strident pro-Christian rhetoric in its campaigns to ensure that ‘public displays of religion’ are maintained during the Christmas holiday,” and to the organization’s “broader right-wing views, including the allegation that the Obama Administration has a ‘socialist liberal agenda.’”
The Traditional Values Coalition is a conservative organization that opposes homosexuality on religious grounds and rejects the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would designate transgendered people (cross-dressers) as a “protected class” whom employers would not be free to eliminate from job-applicant pools.
The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit legal defense organization that does pro bono work “in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.”
The World Congress of Families opposes same-sex marriage, in accordance with its belief that “the natural family founded on marriage between a man and a woman” is the “fundamental group unit” of society.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal organization that “advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith,” with a specific focus on “cases involving religious liberty issues, the sanctity of human life, and marriage and family.” SPLC particularly objects to ADF’s opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.
The National Organization for Marriage believes that marriage should only involve one man and one woman, and that it should not be redefined.
The Center for Family and Human Rights works to “monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions”; has participated in every major UN social policy debate since 1997; strives to “defend life and family at international institutions”; and professes “fidelity to the teachings of the Church.”
Family Watch International seeks to “preserve and promote the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman as the societal unit that provides the best outcome for men, women and children”; “provides family-based humanitarian aid to orphans and vulnerable children”; and claims that “the overwhelming preponderance of social science research shows that children fare best when raised by both their married biological parents.”
United Families International believes that the “family is the foundational unit of society”; that “marriage between a man and woman” is the family structure that is most beneficial to society; that “life is sacred and should be protected, including the life of unborn children”; and that “religious liberty emphasizes the right to live our lives according to our religious convictions.”
The American College of Pediatricians opposes “the termination of an in-utero human life by any means”; states that “there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm”; asserts that “science does not support laws that prohibit minors with UHA [unwanted homosexual attraction] from receiving psychotherapy in accordance with their personal goals and values”; and has criticized “pro-homosexual organizations” that “recommend promoting homosexuality as a normal, immutable trait that should be validated during childhood, as early as kindergarten,” and that “condemn all efforts to provide treatment to gender confused students, advocating instead the creation of student groups that affirm homosexual attractions and behaviors.”
The American Family Association believes that “God ordained the marital covenant as the exclusive context for sexual contact to be enjoyed between a husband (one man) and his wife (one woman),” and that “any extra-marital sexual contact is decried by God as sinful conduct.”
Citizens for Community Values believes that the distribution and consumption of pornography is morally destructive to the individual and society; that all other sexually oriented businesses are likewise “detrimental to men, women, children and families”; opposes “school curricula and policies that promote and encourage sexual behaviors that are physically, emotionally or spiritually unhealthy”; and believes that “the basic building block of our society is the family — a father, mother, and their natural or adopted children.”
Faith2Action describes itself as a “pro-active launching pad for the pro-family movement” based on Christian religious principles.
Generations Passing on the Faith is a Christian group that opposes gay marriage.
The Illinois Family Institute “wholeheartedly support[s] the right to life from conception until natural death, seeking legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions”; opposes the Roe v. Wade Supreme Cort decision on grounds that “it erred in granting a ‘privacy right’ to abortion that tragically overrode the right of unborn children to live”; “support[s] state and federal efforts to recognize the preeminent role of parents in shaping their children’s lives”; “strongly support[s] the Defense of Marriage Act as enacted in Illinois to defend the institution of marriage between one man and one woman”; “oppose[s] efforts to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ as a categories for preferential status under civil rights statutes”; and asserts that Sharia, or Islamic Law, “is a destructive ideology incompatible with any healthy, free society that values human rights, equality, and justice.”
The D. James Kennedy Ministries, which seek to proclaim “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” as widely as possible, oppose the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Notably in August 2017 the Kennedy Ministries filed a federal lawsuit charging that SPLC had defamed the Christian organization as an “active hate group” because it accepts the biblical view of homosexuality. “It’s completely disingenuous to tag D. James Kennedy Ministries as a hate group alongside the KKK and neo-Nazis,” said Kennedy Ministries spokesman John Rabe. “We desire all people, with no exceptions, to receive the love of Christ and his forgiveness and healing. We unequivocally condemn violence, and we hate no one.” “It’s ridiculous for the SPLC to falsely tag evangelical Christian ministries as ‘hate groups’ simply for upholding the 2,000-year-old Christian consensus on marriage and sexuality,” Rabe added. “It’s nothing more than an attempt to bulldoze over those who disagree with them, and it has a chilling effect on the free exercise of religion in a nation built on that. We decided not to let their falsehoods stand.”
SPLC has also criticized Focus on the Family (FOTF), which has long been a respected and influential evangelical ministry, as a “fringe group” that uses “smarmy tactics” to “make schools less safe for LGBT students and more safe for their harassers.” Most objectionable to the Center is FOTF’s suggestion that “too often, classroom materials promoted in the name of ‘safety,’ ‘tolerance’ or ‘anti-bullying’ teaching go far beyond the realm of safety prevention into political advocacy, and even indoctrination.”
“Islamophobia” and “Anti-Muslim” Groups
SPLC defines “hate groups” as those that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics” — i.e., nationality, ethnicity, race, physical appearance, or sexual orientation. But in that definition, the word “typically” provides a conspicuous loophole enabling the Center to also smear groups that hate “atypically,” for reasons of “mutable” characteristics like class, ideology, and religious belief. As author Steven Menzies points out, “scores if not hundreds of SPLC’s ‘hate groups’ are organizations whose ‘beliefs and practices’ include disagreement with groups over doctrine, ideology, or status rather than ‘immutable characteristics.’”
Indeed, SPLC sees “Islamophobia” — hatred and fear based on the “mutable” trait of religious faith — as yet another major defect in the American character, particularly post-9/11. The June 2012 edition of Intelligence Report, for instance, featured a hit piece titled “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right,” which claimed that “an anti-Muslim movement, almost entirely ginned up by political opportunists and hard-line Islamophobes, has grown enormously since taking off in 2010, when reported anti-Muslim hate crimes went up by 50%.” That seemingly ominous statistic seems less foreboding, however, when one examines the actual raw numbers that SPLC omitted from its bold-faced alarm: According to FBI data, the number of “reported anti-Muslim hate crimes” nationwide increased from 114 in 2009 to 160 in 2010 — technically a 50% increase, but hardly what could be characterized as an epidemic in a nation of 310 million people.
Further, SPLC’s report gives no indication that the anti-Muslim hate-crime count of 2010 was in fact consistent with the normal, slightly fluctuating incidence of such events in other years — e.g., 155 in 2002, 149 in 2003, and 156 in 2004. Equally noteworthy is the fact that when the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes had dropped from 156 in 2006 to 115 in 2007 — and from 481 in 2001 (the year of the 9/11 attacks) to 155 in 2002 — the Center never thought to suggest that bigotry against Muslims was declining steeply.
SPLC’s “30 New Activists” report dismisses, as purveyors of hate, a number of scholars, researchers, and journalists who have examined and discussed, in a thoughtful and responsible manner, the teachings, values, history, and objectives of militant Islamists. Among those smeared in the report are WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah, American Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney, blogger/activist Pamela Geller, Accuracy in Media director Cliff Kincaid, and attorney David Yerushalmi. In an effort to marginalize these individuals, SPLC lumps them together with Klansmen and neo-Nazis.
SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim groups” likewise conflates responsible expositors of hard truths, with bands of hate mongers. For instance, the Center has, at various times, condemned such organizations as Concerned American Citizens, whose objective is to “develop a coalition with moderate Muslims … for promoting Islamic reform in America”; the Sharia Awareness Action Network, which seeks to educate “the American citizenry about how Sharia Law stands in opposition to Constitutional Law”; PoliticalIslam.com, a website that points out, quite accurately, that Islam is “a political ideology” that “divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, the latter of whom “must submit to Islam in all politics and public life”; and the Christian Action Network, which has warned about Islamic Sharia law’s “encroachment in American society,” warned about the presence of jihadist and terrorist training camps in the United States, and pointed out how school textbooks “contain a bias toward Islam and against Christianity.” Neither the declared motives nor the public statements of these organizations call for any type of mistreatment of Muslims, but SPLC — convinced of its own ability to ascertain the hidden motives of its ideological adversaries — nonetheless maintains that “anti-Muslim” bigotry is the animating force that drives them.
In June 2015, SPLC published “Women Against Islam,” a survey of what it described as twelve conservative women who promote anti-Islamic messages. The list included Ann Coulter (author and columnist), Pamela Geller (publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com and president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative), Laura Ingraham (political commentator and radio host), Cathie Adams (former chair of Republican Party of Texas), Ann Barnhardt (blogger), Brigette Gabriel (founder of ACT!), Cathy Hinners (former police officer and editor of Daily Roll Call), Clare Lopez (former CIA officer), Jeanine Pirro (Fox News host and former district attorney), Sandy Rios (American Family Association talk show host), Debbie Schlussel (blogger), and Diana West (author and columnist).
In the introduction to “Women Against Islam,” its authors, Mark Potok and Janet Smith, stated: “The radical right, and more broadly the political right, has generally been dominated by men. And there are certainly plenty of men in the world of Muslim-bashing activism … But the universe of American anti-Muslim activists is peculiarly dominated by women. They are a mixed bag of bloggers, politicos, authors, TV personalities, radio talk show hosts, and leaders of anti-Muslim organizations. Many of them have other windmills to tilt at, from gay rights to communism to President Obama, but most have increasingly focused on attacking Muslims.” The article then presented brief profiles of the (aforementioned) “most hardline” of the “anti-Muslim” female activists in the U.S., “who do not merely criticize radical Islam, but effectively describe all Muslims as part of a serious global problem.”
In October 2016, SPLC published a report titled Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, a blacklist profiling 15 “Islam-bashing activists” whose “propaganda” was allegedly responsible for “fueling” acts of public “hatred” against “American Muslims,” who purportedly “have been under attack” in the U.S. “ever since the Al Qaeda massacre of Sept. 11, 2001.” The subjects of these profiles included: Ann Corcoran, Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Geller, John Guandolo, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, David Horowitz, Ryan Mauro, Maajid Nawaz, Robert Muise, Daniel Pipes, Walid Shoebat, Robert Spencer, and David Yerushalmi.
Each of these individuals seeks, in writings and speeches that are firmly rooted in factual information, to inform the American public about the beliefs, values, agendas, and activities of Islamic jihadists, and about the potential consequences of widespread Muslim immigration to the United States. But SPLC — rather than simply asserting that the arguments or conclusions of these authors are flawed in some way — instead smears them as wild-eyed Islamophobes who, as in the case of Gaffney, are “gripped by paranoid fantasies about Muslims destroying the West from within.” Consider, for instance, some of the easily verifiable — or at least supportable — statements that SPLC has cited as evidence of unhinged bigotry:
Corcoran’s assertion that “we have made a grievous error in taking the Muslim refugees, Somalis in particular, who have no intention of becoming Americans”;
Emerson’s assertion that the Obama administration “extensively collaborates” with the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Europe has numerous “no-go zones” which non-Muslims cannot enter without great peril to their own safety;
Gabriel’s assertion that any “practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah” and embraces Sharia Law “cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States,” and that Islamists’ “ideology … forbids them to assimilate” to Western culture;
Gaffney’s assertion that “we’re witnessing not just the violent kind of jihad that these Islamists believe God compels them to engage in, but also, where they must for tactical reasons, a more stealthy kind, or civilizational jihad as the Muslim Brotherhood calls it”;
Geller’s assertion that Islam is “the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth”;
Hirsi Ali’s assertion that “violence is inherent in Islam”;
Horowitz’s 2008 ad campaign stating that the Muslim Students Association was “founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the godfather of Al Qaeda and Hamas, to bring jihad into the heart of American higher education” (SPLC had once dubbed Horowitz himself as “the godfather of the anti-Muslim movement”);
Muise’s assertion that “stealth jihadists … covertly seek to perpetuate sharia into American society,” and that “80% of the mosques in the United States distribute literature that promotes violence against nonbelievers”;
Pipes’ assertion that the infamous terrorist organization ISIS is “100 percent Islamic” and “profoundly Islamic”;
Spencer’s assertion that “traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful,” and “is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers”; and
Yerushalmi’s assertion that “the only Islam appearing in any formal way around the world is one that seeks a world Caliphate through murder, terror and fear.”
In an October 2016 interview with the Tablet, Maajid Nawaz, a former radical Muslim who now speaks out against jihadism, stated that the SPLC staffers who had collaborated on writing the Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists were “a bunch of first-world, comfortable liberal Americans who are not Muslims [and] have decided from their comfortable perch to label me, an activist who is working within his Muslim community to push back against extremism, an anti-Muslim extremist.” Emphasizing that because SPLC’s blacklist had “put a target on my head,” Nawaz said he believed that his own life was now in danger: “This is what putting people on lists does. When Theo Van Gogh was killed in the Netherlands, a list was stuck to his body that included Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s name. It was a hit list. When Bangladeshi reformers were hacked to death by jihadist terrorists, they were working off lists.” “The left is no longer about advancing progressive values,” Nawaz added. “For them, it’s now about tribal identities, and any internal critique is seen as treachery.” A few months later, in June 2017, Nawaz sued SPLC for defamation. “They are ideologically driven to silence any voice that introspects from within the Muslim community,” Nawaz said of SPLC, adding that the group is mostly “interested in point-scoring against the right wing.”
“They [SPLC] 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 [against] the likes of … 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…. [A]ll 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….”
In 2017, SPLC reported that the number of anti-Muslim hate groups in the United States had virtually tripled, from 34 in 2015 to 101 the following year. But the Center neglected to mention that a major cause of that rise was the fact that in 2016, SPLC decided to count 45 chapters of Act for America (AfA) as separate groups, whereas in 2015 it had counted AfA and its many local chapters as just one group. Notably, AfA was founded in 2007, and most of its 1,000+ chapters had been in existence for a number of years. Why, then, did it list only 45 of them as hate groups in 2016? Author Daniel Greenfield offered an explanation, speculating that in future years, SPLC could add some of the theretofore uncounted AfA chapters to its list, thereby giving the impression that “anti-Muslim hate” is spiraling out of control.
It should be noted, at this point, that SPLC’s designation of AfA as a “hate group” is a result of nothing more than the fact that, as noted earlier, the Center routinely applies that label to any organization whose political views differ from its own. Specifically, AfA: (a) accurately describes the Muslim Brotherhood as “a militant, pro-sharia law organization that has used both violent and non-violent means to achieve its ultimate goal of restoring the Muslim caliphate and the glory of the Islamic empire”; and (b) condemns “the primitive and uncivilized practices of female genital mutilation and ‘honor killings.’” A major cause of SPLC’s antipathy towards AfA is the fact that at various times, AfA founder Brigitte Gabriel has made the following five statements, which SPLC describes as examples of “wild hate speech demonizing Muslims”:
“Europe will no longer be Europe by 2050. Europe has already become Eurabia.”
“They are people from Libya, Tunisia, Eritrea, Egypt, the Horn of Africa. They are not only people that are escaping wars, but they are people seeking economic freedom. They are people trying to suck off of the people from the West. They know they can get a free ticket for money. They are not coming here to build empires and become great business men and entrepreneurs. They are coming here to get the free checks from you and me who work very hard to pay our taxes.”
“[A] practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah … who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day — this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States.”
“Islamic terrorists … are really just very devout followers of Muhammad. They are following his example and doing exactly what the Koran teaches and their mullahs exhort them to do.”
“[W]e are engaged in a brutal war against a brutal enemy, the enemy of Islamic terrorism, and so many people in our country choose to look the other way, so many people in our country choose to ignore it, so many people choose to be politically correct.”
Below is a list of additional noteworthy organizations that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as Anti-Muslim hate groups. While these groups clearly take positions that differ from those of SPLC, they do not preach “hate” against any group of people for any reason:
The American Freedom Alliance describes itself as “a non-partisan, non-aligned movement which promotes, defends and upholds Western values and ideals.” Toward that end, it “sponsors conferences, publishes opinions, distributes information, and creates networking groups to identify threats to Western civilization and to motivate, educate and unite citizens in support of that cause.”
The American Freedom Law Center is a public interest litigation firm that “aggressively seeks to advance and defend our Nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage in courts all across our Nation.”
The Center for Security Policy aims “to expose the threat to America from Shariah,” some of whose adherents “seek to install Shariah as a parallel legal and political system in the United States, constituting a separate governance system for the Muslim community with respect to family law, civil society, media and political discourse, finance and homeland security.”
The Clarion Project is a nonprofit organization that “educates the public about the dangers of radical Islam”; “expose[s] how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder, subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution, genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation and cultural jihad — to threaten the West”; and “delivers news, expert analysis, videos, and unique perspectives about radical Islam, while giving a platform to moderate Muslims and human rights activists to speak out against extremism.”
The David Horowitz Freedom Center “combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.”
Family Security Matters produces reports and analyses of numerous subjects, including such topics as the dangers posed by unregulated immigration and the rise of radical Islam.
Jihad Watch is “dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts.”
Refugee Resettlement Watch claims that “it makes no sense to bring in tens of thousands of refugees and place them on welfare and other public assistance either.”
Immigrant Justice and “Anti-Immigrant” Groups
Adhering to the theme of a profoundly hateful United States, SPLC charges that Latin American immigrants, who “perform some of the hardest, most dangerous jobs in our economy — for the least amount of pay,” are “routinely cheated out of their earnings and denied basic health and safety protections”; are “denied basic protections in the workplace”; are “subjected to racial profiling and harassment by law enforcement”; and are regularly “targeted for harassment by racist extremist groups.” These trends, says SPLC, have been “encouraged” by “politicians and media figures” guilty of spreading “false propaganda that scapegoats immigrants for our nation’s problems and foments resentment and hate against them.” The growth of this “civil rights crisis,” as SPLC calls it, “has been driven almost entirely by the immigration debate.” Conspicuously absent from the foregoing assertions is any acknowledgment that it is illegal immigration — and not legal immigration — that sits at the heart of the debate.
Condemning conservatives’ supposedly mean-spirited “war on immigrants,” SPLC in 2011 was incensed by the Alabama legislature’s passage of HB 56, which the Center dubbed an “anti-immigrant law” that sent “a destructive message of intolerance” to the state’s “Latino residents.” Specifically, the law: (a) required Alabama police to try to determine a detainee’s immigration status if there was “reasonable suspicion” that he was in the U.S. illegally; (b) barred illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits or attending publicly owned colleges; (c) prohibited the transporting or harboring of illegal immigrants; (d) forbade employers from knowingly hiring illegals; (e) criminalized the production of false identification documents; and (f) required voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering. By SPLC’s reckoning, these positions were uniformly “hateful.”
In late 2007, SPLC labeled the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) — which seeks to “improve border security” and “stop illegal immigration” and ensure “that our immigration policies and laws … serve the nation’s future needs” — as a “hate group.” “What we are hoping very much to accomplish is to marginalize FAIR,” said SPLC senior fellow Mark Potok. “We don’t think they should be a part of the mainstream media.” To emphasize just how dangerous FAIR’s rhetoric could be, SPLC announced, soon after commencing its “Stop the Hate” initiative, that “hate crimes targeting Latinos increased again in 2007, capping a 40% rise in the four years since 2003” — from 426 incidents in 2003 to 595 incidents in 2007. Why did SPLC choose 2003 as the starting point? Perhaps it was because in 2002, the number of reported anti-Hispanic hate crimes in the U.S. was 480, a fact that would have failed to advance the narrative of consistently rising levels of bigoted violence. Even more inconvenient was the fact that in 2001, there were 597 reported anti-Hispanic hate crimes — i.e., two more than in 2007, whose total allegedly represented the high point of an alarming trend.
The misleading nature of SPLC’s statistics, however, did not stop the left-wing National Council of La Raza from exploiting that “hate group” designation for use in its own “Stop the Hate” campaign, which it launched, on behalf of “undocumented immigrants,” soon after FAIR had played a key role in persuading members of the U.S. Senate to reject a sweeping immigration-reform proposal that would have created a pathway to amnesty and citizenship for millions of illegals. As part of “Stop the Hate,” La Raza president and CEO Janet Murguia cited SPLC’s designation and declared, “FAIR is a known, documented hate group.” Similarly, La Raza policy analyst Cecilia Munoz denounced the “wave of hate” underlying the anti-immigration-reform movement.
Below is a list of additional noteworthy organizations that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as Anti-Immigrant hate groups. While these groups clearly take positions that differ from those of SPLC, they do not preach “hate” against any group of people for any reason:
American Border Patrol monitors traffic across Southeastern Arizona’s border with Mexico — the heart of a major smuggling corridor. But according to SPLC, it is dominated by “anti-immigrant ideologues.”
Americans for Immigration Control contends that illegal immigration is a “lawless” phenomenon that “puts the future of our country in jeopardy.”
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization whose mission is to provide “reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States.”
Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) “works to formulate and advance policies and programs designed to stabilize the population of California, the U.S. and the world at levels which will preserve the environment and a good quality of life for all.” “It’s important to note,” CAPS emphasizes, “that CAPS does not advocate blaming immigrants. We don’t blame people from other countries for wanting to come live here. We are pro immigrant — we strive to meaningfully uphold and nurture the American Dream for people who wants to come to the U.S. through legal channels in numbers that our environment and resources can reasonably accommodate (approximately 300,000 a year)…. It’s our government’s irresponsible immigration policy that to this day continues to import millions of people with little to no regard for whether they have a skill set that matches the country’s economic needs, whether they will take an American’s job, whether they will end up on welfare or the impact their numbers will have on our infrastructure and our environment.”
The Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform describes itself as “pro-legal immigrant and pro-legal immigration, but at numbers consistent with assimilation and sustainability.”
The Immigration Reform Law Institute aims “to defend the rights of individual Americans and their local communities from the harms and challenges posed by mass migration to the United States, both lawful and unlawful,” and “to monitor and hold accountable federal, state, or local government officials who undermine, fail to respect, or comply with our national immigration and citizenship laws.”
Legal Immigrants for America “gives a voice to all Americans, including both native-born citizens and legal immigrants, who want to save the United States of America before it becomes a borderless, lawless, toothless remnant of the great nation that it once was.”
New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement describes itself as a “grassroots activist group dedicated to having our existing immigration laws enforced.”
ProEnglish “work[s] through the courts and in the court of public opinion to defend English’s historic role as America’s common, unifying language, and to persuade lawmakers to adopt English as the official language at all levels of government.”
SPLC has also condemned NumbersUSA, which, while favoring “reductions in immigration numbers toward traditional levels,” explicitly rejects “hostile actions or feelings toward immigrant Americans” and declares that “illegal aliens deserve humane treatment even as they are detected, detained and deported.”
Similarly, SPLC has derided the American Legion’s opposition to illegal immigration and amnesty as “Legionnaires’ Disease” — even though the Legion fully supports opportunities for legal immigration.
In the same vein, SPLC has denounced the Minuteman Project — a nonviolent, volunteer, grassroots effort initiated by private American citizens seeking to restrict the flow of illegal border-crossers — as an entity whose ideals and tactics are rooted in “racism.”
So egregious has been SPLC’s propensity to portray conservatives as racists, that even the left-wing Obama Administration at one point chastised the organization for its irresponsible rhetoric. After a March 2016 court hearing during which SPLC had accused the Federation for American Immigration Reform of being a racist organization, Jennifer J. Barnes, disciplinary counsel for the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, wrote a letter scolding an SPLC attorney as well as lawyers from a number of partner groups for having smeared FAIR as “a discredited, extremist anti-immigrant organization espousing white supremacist, eugenicist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic views.” Asserting that the attorneys’ decision to “engage in derogatory name-calling exhibited a lack of professionalism” that “overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy,” Barnes wrote: “None of this language was related or relevant to the underlying factual or legal matters. Such language is not appropriate in a filing before the Board (or any judicial tribunal) because it constitutes frivolous behavior and does not aid the administration of justice.”
By contrast, SPLC typically gives a free pass to left-wing groups that advocate on behalf of illegal immigrants and open borders, no matter how hateful or race-obsessed those groups’ agendas may be. Consider the National Council of La Raza, whose name literally means “The Race.” Hailed by SPLC research director Heidi Beirich as “a venerable civil-rights organization,” La Raza views virtually any opposition to amnesty and to government assistance for illegal immigrants as “a disgrace to American values.”
SPLC finds no fault with La Raza, even though the latter once gave money to a branch of MEChA, a “Chicano Students” organization that: (a) calls for the people and government of Mexico to annex the American Southwest; (b) explicitly refuses (in its founding manifestos) to recognize “capricious frontiers on the bronze continent [the United States]”; and (c) vows to repel the “brutal ‘gringo’ invasion of our territories.” Not even MEChA’s slogan — which translates to “For the race, everything; Outside of the race, nothing” — draws the ire of SPLC. As Mark Potok puts it, “we have found no evidence to support charges that [MEChA] is racist or anti-Semitic.”
Other Categories of “Hate Groups”
In addition to “Anti-LGBT,” “Anti-Muslim,” and “Anti-Immigrant,” SPLC has also compiled relatively small lists of hate groups categorized as “Christian Identity,” “Hate Music,” “Holocaust Denial,” and “General Hate.”
No More “Black Separatist” Category
As noted previously, the “Black Separatist” category — which had contained only a small number of different groups, but listed their multiple chapters as separate entities — was dropped by SPLC in early 2021, on the premise that: (a) such organizations “are not made up of only Black individuals,” and (b) “Black separatism was born out of valid anger against very real historical and systemic oppression.” By SPLC’s telling: “Some Black nationalists have committed violence against Jewish communities, but those are fueled by antisemitism, not separatism.” Thus, SPLC resolved to thenceforth list black nationalist/separatist groups not by race, but under the headings of “Anti-semitism” and “Homophobia.”
The “Anti-Government” “Patriot Movement”
In the spring of 2013, SPLC issued a report asserting that there had recently been a dramatic proliferation of radical anti-government “Patriot” and militia groups which “believ[e] that the federal government is conspiring to take Americans’ guns and destroy their liberties as it paves the way for a global ‘one-world government.’” According to SPLC, the total number of such groups had skyrocketed from 149 in 2008 to 1,360 by 2012. The report attributed this trend to the fact that “for many, the election of America’s first black president [Barack Obama] symbolizes the country’s changing demographics, with the loss of its white majority predicted by 2043.” Further, the report speculated: “Now that comprehensive immigration reform is poised to legitimize and potentially accelerate the country’s demographic change, the backlash to that change may accelerate as well.”
Said SPLC senior fellow Mark Potok: “We are seeing a real and rising threat of domestic terrorism as the number of far-right anti-government groups continues to grow at an astounding pace. It is critically important that the country take this threat seriously. The potential for deadly violence is real, and clearly rising.”
Depicting the Criminal Justice System As Racist
Lamenting that “the number of prisoners per capita” “has more than quadrupled” over “the past four decades” and “is now unprecedented in world history,” SPLC notes that “this vast expansion of the corrections system has been called ‘the New Jim Crow’ [and is] a system marred by vast racial disparities – one that stigmatizes and targets young black men for arrest at a young age, unfairly punishes communities of color, burdens taxpayers and exacts a tremendous social cost.”
“Learning for Justice” (formerly known as “Teaching Tolerance”)
One of SPLC’s most highly touted initiatives is its Learning for Justice program (which went by the name of “Teaching Tolerance” until February 2, 2021), which works to “foster school environments that are inclusive and nurturing,” and to help teachers “prepare a new generation to live in a diverse world.” The program produces a biannual magazine, titled Teaching Tolerance, which reaches more than 400,000 educators nationwide, as well as multimedia teaching kits, online curricula, and professional development resources. All of these are provided to educators at no cost. The Learning for Justice lesson kits contain reading materials and suggested classroom activities designed to steer K-12 students toward the conclusion that America is an inequitable, racist, and sexist society. As such, they bear the unmistakable imprint of Morris Dees. Click here for examples of Learning for Justice’s classroom lessons.
The Spring 1998 edition of Teaching Tolerance magazine featured an interview with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, under the title “An Unconditional Embrace.” In the prologue to that interview, Ayers, who had become a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was described variously as “a highly respected figure in the field of multicultural education”; a man who “has developed a rich vision of teaching that interweaves passion, responsibility and self-reflection”; a professor who “helps aspiring teachers recognize and tap the potential of every child”; and someone who believes that “challenging stereotypes and reforming inner-city schools is as much about fighting for social justice as about improving the quality of teaching and learning.”
Moreover, the Learning for Justice program and its companion website, LearningForJustice.org, market Ayers’ books.
The Media’s Widespread Acceptance of SPLC’s “Hate Group” Designations
Notwithstanding SPLC’s history of making inflated and reckless charges of racism and “hate,” the mainstream media, for the most part, have dutifully accepted the Center’s self-characterization as a courageous foe of those vices. Laird Wilcox puts it this way: “The SPLC has exploited the patina of the old civil-rights movement. And this has a mesmerizing effect on people, especially reporters who are naturally attracted to heroic images of racial struggles and stark contrasts of good vs. evil. I’ve been astounded at how many of the SPLC’s claims have gone unchallenged.” Wilcox further describes SPLC as emblematic of the “anti-racist industry afoot in the United States that has attracted bullying, moralizing fanatics.” “They want to marginalize certain points of view in our society,” he says, “and they do it by acting like a kind of certifying agency that decides who is extremist and who isn’t.”
The FBI Removes SPLC From Its Hate Crimes Web Page
In March 2014 the FBI scrubbed any mention of SPLC from its hate crimes web page, where the Center previously had been listed as a resource and described as a partner in public outreach. The FBI’s move apparently came in response to a letter that Family Research Council (FRC) executive vice president William G. Boykin had written to the U.S. Department of Justice. (As noted earlier, in August 2012 a gunman, inflamed by SPLC allegations that FRC was a “hate group,” had walked into FRC’s headquarters with the intention of murdering people therein.) Signed also by 14 other conservative and Christian leaders, Boykin’s letter called SPLC “a heavily politicized organization producing inaccurate and biased data on ‘hate groups’ — not hate crimes.”
Boykin’s letter further noted that SPLC was “providing findings that are not consistent with trends found in the FBI statistics.” That is, whereas FBI findings indicated that the incidence of hate crimes and the prevalence of hate groups had declined significantly during the preceding decade, SPLC was claiming that the number of hate groups had increased by 67.3% since 2000. Demanding that all ties between the FBI and SPLC be severed, the letter concluded that “it is completely inappropriate for the Department of Justice to recommend public reliance on the SPLC hate group lists and data.”
After the references to SPLC were taken off the FBI website, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said: “We commend the FBI for removing website links to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that not only dispenses erroneous data but has been linked to domestic terrorism in federal court. We hope this means the FBI leadership will avoid any kind of partnership with the SPLC.”
Using a Racial Attack in South Carolina to Justify the Removal of Confederate Statues
After a disturbed young white man named Dylann Roof murdered nine black people who were attending a Bible study at the Emanuel A.M.E. church in Charleston, South Carolina in June 2015, it was discovered that Roof had previously been photographed holding a Confederate battle flag. Reasoning from the premise that Confederate symbols represent the legacy of slavery and white supremacy and thus foster racial violence against blacks, SPLC initiated a high-profile campaign demanding the removal not only of Confederate flags from public areas across the South, but also the removal of more than 700 Confederate-themed statues and monuments nationwide. As City Journalreports, SPLC similarly called for “renaming at least 1,500 schools, highways, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, roads, military bases, and other public works [that bore Confederate-themed names] in 41 states, as well as eliminating official holidays or observances in six states.” “This breathtaking initiative,” said City Journal, “entails the classic elements of the SPLC’s finely honed demagoguery: false association of a repugnant killer with the SPLC’s target, in this case, Confederate symbols; raising the specter of racism to suppress dissent; and exploiting a divisive issue for fundraising purposes.”
SPLC’s Smear of a Conservative Author Leads to Campus Violence
In early March 2017, demonstrators who violently protested an appearance at Middlebury College by Charles Murray, the American Enterprise Institute scholar who co-authored the 1994 book The Bell Curve, attributed their rage against Murray to SPLC’s claim that he is a “White Nationalist” who “us[es] racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women, and the poor.” Each time Murray tried to speak, the Middlebury protesters turned their backs to him and chanted slogans like: (a) “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray, go away,” and (b) “Your message is hatred. We cannot tolerate it.” Some demonstrators stomped their feet and set off fire alarms to drown out Murray’s voice. Eventually, the college moved Murray to another location to livestream a discussion. Then, as Murray was leaving the campus after the event, he was physically assaulted by protesters who surrounded him and stomped on the hood of his car and and pounded on its windows. After Murray and his academic hosts finally managed to get away and take refuge at a nearby inn, the protesters tracked them down and forced them to flee again.
Fan of SPLC Tries to Murder Several Republican Congressmen
On June 14, 2017, a 66-year-old Illinois man named James T. Hodgkinson went to a northern Virginia baseball field where a number of House Republicans were practicing for an upcoming charity baseball game (against House Democrats), and he shot five people. Majority Whip Steve Scalise, 51, was the most seriously wounded, suffering life-threatening injuries. After the shooting, it was learned that Hodgkinson, who had volunteered for Bernie Sanders‘ 2016 presidential campaign, was carrying a list of six members of Congress in his pocket at the time of his crime. It was also learned that he had “liked” the SPLC on his Facebook page, along with other leftist organizations such as Media Matters and MoveOn.org.
Two of SPLC’s Conservative Targets File Lawsuits Against the Organization
In June 2017, Maajid Nawaz, a former radical Muslim-turned-anti-jihadist whom SPLC had labeled an “anti-Muslim extremist,” announced that he was suing SPLC for defamation. “They are ideologically driven to silence any voice that introspects from within the Muslim community,” Nawaz said of SPLC, adding that the group is mostly “interested in point-scoring against the right wing.” (In early 2018, SPLC quietly removed from its website the Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, which had listed Nawaz as one of 15 “Islam-bashing activists” whose “propaganda” was responsible for “fueling” acts of public “hatred” against “American Muslims.”) Nawaz eventually won a settlement for $3.375 million in June 2018.
In August 2017, the D. James Kennedy Ministries, which SPLC had designated as an anti-LGBT “hate group” because of its traditional biblical view of homosexuality and marriage, likewise filed a federal lawsuit charging SPLC with defamation. “It’s completely disingenuous to tag D. James Kennedy Ministries as a hate group alongside the KKK and neo-Nazis,” said Kennedy Ministries spokesman John Rabe. “We desire all people, with no exceptions, to receive the love of Christ and his forgiveness and healing. We unequivocally condemn violence, and we hate no one.” “It’s ridiculous for the SPLC to falsely tag evangelical Christian ministries as ‘hate groups’ simply for upholding the 2,000-year-old Christian consensus on marriage and sexuality,” Rabe added. “It’s nothing more than an attempt to bulldoze over those who disagree with them, and it has a chilling effect on the free exercise of religion in a nation built on that. We decided not to let their falsehoods stand.”
Capitalizing on Violence at White Supremacist March in Charlottesville, Virginia
SPLC’s fundraising efforts received a significant boost in the immediate aftermath of an August 12, 2017 incident in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a group of approximately 700 members of fringe groups, including numerous white nationalists and neo-Nazis, held a “Unite The Right” rally ostensibly to protest the proposed removal of a statue of the Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a local park. The aforementioned demonstrators clashed with a group of hundreds of leftist counter-demonstrators, many of whom represented the Marxist/anarchist movement known as Antifa, and one woman was killed when a young white nationalist rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters. (Click here for a comprehensive timeline, with video footage, of the day’s events.) Shortly after the mayhem, President Donald Trump condemned “the egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides” in Charlottesville. In response, the left rose up like a chorus condemning the president for failing to specifically call out the instigators as “white supremacists,” and for choosing to assign blame not solely to the supremacists, but also to the Marxists and anarchists. Two days after that, on August 14, Trump specifically named “the KKK,” “neo-Nazis,” and “white supremacists” as objects of ridicule. But by then, the left had made it clear that it was too little, too late.
The massive publicity that this incident received, coupled SPLC’s description of the rally as the “largest hate-gathering of its kind in decades,” prompted a number of high-profile individuals and corporations to pledge money to SPLC’s professed effort to “monito[r] and expos[e] the activities of the American radical right.” For example, actor George Clooney and his wife Amal pledged $1 million to the organization, while J.P. Morgan Chase & Company pledged $500,000. The CEO of the Apple Inc., Tim Cook, announced that his company would not only give $1 million to SPLC, but would also match any donations from Apple employees at a two-to-one rate over the course of the ensuing month. Moreover, Cook stated that Apple would be setting up a system in iTunes software that would allow consumers to donate to SPLC directly. Corporate donations were also promised by Uber, MGM Resorts, and Bumble, an online dating service.
Refusing to Designate the Marxist/Anarchist Antifa Movement As a “Hate Group”
In September 2017, SPLC elected not to include the violent Marxist/anarchist Antifa movement in its list of “hate groups.” SPLC president Richard Cohen explained that while “we oppose these groups and what they’re trying to do” by censoring speech and inevitably provoking “other forms of retaliation,” Antifa does not qualify for designation as a “hate group” because its adherents do not discriminate against people on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion, or other variables protected by anti-discrimination laws. In short, said Cohen, Antifa’s brand of hate is “not the type of hate we follow.”
SPLC’s Immense Wealth
In 1978, when SPLC’s assets were below $10 million, Morris Dees pledged that as soon as that total reached $55 million, the Center would thenceforth discontinue its fundraising efforts, use its investment interest income to cover its operating expenses, and focus exclusively on its civil-rights work. But as its assets approached that figure, the organization in 1989 revised its pledge, stating that it would actually need to accumulate $100 million before it could finally “cease the costly and often unreliable task of fund raising.” As money continued to fill its coffers, the Center persisted in depicting itself as a cash-strapped organization working on a shoestring budget. In 1995, for instance, when SPLC had more than $60 million in cash reserves, it informed would-be donors that the “strain on our current operating budget is the greatest in our 25-year history.”
An April 2013 exposé by theWeekly Standard shows that SPLC, in comparison to other nonprofit organizations, spends an inordinately high percentage of its revenues on salaries, overhead, and fundraising:
“CharityWatch (formerly the American Institute of Philanthropy), an independent organization that monitors and rates leading nonprofits for their fundraising efficiency, has consistently given the SPLC its lowest grade of ‘F’ (i.e., ‘poor’) for its stockpiling of assets far beyond what CharityWatch deems a reasonable reserve (three years’ worth of operating expenses) to tide it over during donation-lean years. But even if the SPLC weren’t sitting on an unspent $256 million, according to CharityWatch, it would still be a mediocre (‘C+’) performer among nonprofits. The SPLC’s 2011 tax filing reveals that the organization raised a total of $38.5 million from its donors that year but spent only $24.9 million on ‘program services,’ with the rest going to salaries, overhead, and fundraising. And even that 67 percent figure is somewhat inflated, according to CharityWatch, which notes that the SPLC takes advantage of an accounting rule that permits nonprofits to count some of their fundraising expenses as ‘public education’ if, for example, a mailer contains an informational component. CharityWatch, ignoring that accounting rule, maintains that only 60 percent — about $19 million — went to program services during the year in question…. Furthermore, the SPLC spends a relatively high $26 on fundraising (according to CharityWatch, $18 according to the SPLC) for every $100 that it manages to raise.”
Philanthropy Roundtable (PR), another monitor of nonprofit groups, has characterized SPLC as a “tendentious,” “irresponsible,” and “notoriously partisan attack group,” as well as “a cash-collecting machine.” In early 2017, PR stated: “Though it styles itself as a public-interest law firm, the Southern Poverty Law Center does shockingly little litigation, and only small amounts of that on behalf of any aggrieved individuals. Its two largest expenses are propaganda operations: creating its annual lists of ‘haters’ and ‘extremists,’ and running a big effort that pushes ‘tolerance education’ through more than 400,000 public-school teachers. And the single biggest effort undertaken by the SPLC? Fundraising. On the organization’s 2015 IRS 990 form it declared $10 million of direct fundraising expenses, far more than it has ever spent on legal services.”
In a talk at Harvard’s Nieman Foundation for Journalism, Montgomery Advertiser managing editor Jim Tharpe said of SPLC: “They’ve never spent more than 31 percent of the money they were bringing in on programs, and sometimes they spent as little as 18 percent. Most nonprofits spend about 75 percent on programs.”
In 2015, SPLC spent approximately $20 million on salaries for its employees, and just $61,000 on the administration of legal services.
As of 2016, SPLC held $319.28 million worth of assets in a massive endowment fund — assets not used to bankroll any civil-rights programs.
In the fiscal year that ended on October 31, 2017, SPLC took in revenues of $136,373,624, of which the vast majority derived from contributions and grants, while $3,341,791 came from investment income. This raised the organization’s net assets to $449,834,593 (total assets of $477,046,287 minus liabilities of $27,211,694).
SPLC accumulated its vast wealth mainly through the calculated maneuverings of Morris Dees, who repeatedly tailored his fundraising tactics to suit the needs of the moment. The renowned anti-death-penalty lawyer (and former Dees associate) Millard Farmer points out, for instance, that the Center, at one point, largely stopped taking capital-punishment cases for fear that a visible opposition to the death penalty might alienate would-be donors. Similarly, Ken Silverstein notes that “in 1986, the Center’s entire legal staff quit in protest of Dees’ refusal to address issues — such as homelessness, voter registration, and affirmative action — that they considered far more pertinent to poor minorities, if far less marketable to affluent benefactors, than fighting the KKK.” In 2001, left-wing writer JoAnn Wypijewski wrote: “Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the SPLC’s website will find only a handful of cases on such non-lucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety, or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and 1980s.”
Whatever the specifics of a given case, SPLC’s profits invariably dwarf those of its clients. Consider the $7 million judgment Dees won in 1987 against the United Klans of America (UKA) on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, whose son Michael had been killed by two Klansmen. At the time, UKA’s sole asset was a warehouse, the sale of which netted $51,875 for Mrs. Donald. The case was much more lucrative for SPLC, which raked in $9 million from subsequent fundraising solicitations built around Michael Donald’s murder, including one solicitation that featured a photo of the young man’s corpse. So profitable was the Michael Donald case, in fact, that as of 2010 the Center was still citing it in fundraising appeals.
Dees’ fundraising tactics were as varied as they were creative. In a 1985 fundraising letter to zip codes where many Jewish residents lived, he made conspicuous use of his Jewish-sounding middle name, Seligman, in his signature at the end of the document. Attorney Tom Turnipseed, a former Dees associate, recounts how, on another occasion, Dees distributed a fundraising letter with “about six different stamps” affixed to the return envelope, so as to make it appear that “they had to cobble them all together to come up with 35 cents.” “Morris loves to raise money,” Turnipseed told Cox News Service. “Some of his gimmicks are just so transparent, but they’re good.”
“He’s the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil-rights movement,” attorney Millard Farmer said of Dees, “though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.”
According to former SPLC legal fellow Pamela Summers, “What they are doing in the [SPLC] legal department is not done for the best interest of everybody [but] is done as though the sole, overriding goal is to make money. They’re drowning in their own affluence.”
The Baltimore Suncharacterizes SPLC’s operations this way: “Its business is fundraising, and its success at raking in the cash is based on its ability to sell gullible people on the idea that present-day America is awash in white racism and anti-Semitism, which it will fight tooth-and-nail as the public interest law firm it purports to be.”
Perhaps the strongest rebuke comes from Stephen Bright, president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, who in 1996 called Dees “a fraud and a con man,” deriding him for “your failure to respond to the most desperate needs of the poor and powerless despite your millions upon millions, your fund-raising techniques, the fact that you spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly.”
Additional SPLC Money in Offshore Tax Haven and Other Foreign Locations
Of the $319.28 million in assets that SPLC possessed as of 2016, some $69.09 million was invested in “non-U.S. equity funds,” according to the organization’s 2016 annual report. This included financial holdings (of undisclosed amounts) in the Cayman Islands, a well-known tax haven. For example, the Washington Free Beacon reports that on November 24, 2014, the Center transferred transferred $960,000 in cash to Tiger Global Private Investment Partners IX, L.P., a pooled investment fund based in the Cayman Islands. Further, on December 24 and December 31, respectively, SPLC transferred cash sums of $102,007 and $157,574 to a pair of additional Cayman Islands-based entities that shared a P.O. Box address: BPV-III Cayman X Limited, and BPV-III Cayman XI Limited. And on March 1, 2015, SPLC made two separate transfers of $2.2 million apiece to a pair of funds incorporated in Canana Bay, Cayman Islands. According to the Free Beacon: “SPLC’s Form 990-T, its business income tax return, from the same year shows that they have ‘financial interests’ in the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda” as well.
“I’ve never known a U.S.-based nonprofit dealing in human rights or social services to have any foreign bank accounts,” tax expert Amy Sterling Casil, CEO of the nonprofit consulting firm Pacific Human Capital, told the_ Free Beacon_. “… I am stunned to learn of transfers of millions to offshore bank accounts. It is a huge red flag and would have been completely unacceptable to any wealthy, responsible, experienced board member who was committed to a charitable mission who I ever worked with.” “It is unethical for any U.S.-based charity to invest large sums of money overseas,” Casil added. “I know of no legitimate reason for any U.S.-based nonprofit to put money in overseas, unregulated bank accounts.”
Former Wall Street analyst and financial adviser Charles Ortel concurred: “It seems extremely unusual for a ‘501(c)(3)’ concentrating upon reducing poverty in the American South to have multiple bank accounts in tax haven nations.”
On March 14, 2019, SPLC announced that it had fired Morris Dees, and suggested that misconduct by Dees had played a role in the decision. Said SPLC president Richard Cohen in a statement:
“Effective yesterday, Morris Dees’ employment at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was terminated. As a civil rights organization, the SPLC is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world. When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action. Today we announced a number of immediate, concrete next steps we’re taking, including bringing in an outside organization to conduct a comprehensive assessment of our internal climate and workplace practices, to ensure that our talented staff is working in the environment that they deserve – one in which all voices are heard and all staff members are respected.”
Nine days later, Mr. Cohen resigned his post as president, announcing his departure in a staff-wide email that said: “Whatever problems exist at the SPLC happened on my watch, so I take responsibility for them.” Said a Daily Signal report: “Current and former SPLC employees have accused the organization of turning a blind eye to sexual harassment and racial discrimination within its own ranks.” In a scathing New Yorkerpiece, Bob Moser, who had worked as a writer for SPLC 18 years earlier, wrote:
“For those of us who’ve worked in the [SPLC], putting it all into perspective isn’t easy, even to ourselves. We were working with a group of dedicated and talented people, fighting all kinds of good fights, making life miserable for the bad guys. And yet, all the time, dark shadows hung over everything: the racial and gender disparities, the whispers about sexual harassment, the abuses that stemmed from the top-down management, and the guilt you couldn’t help feeling about the legions of donors who believed that their money was being used, faithfully and well, to do the Lord’s work in the heart of Dixie. We were part of the con, and we knew it.”
60 Conservative Groups Mull Lawsuits Against SPLC
In an April 2019 article, PJ Media reported that more than 60 organizations that SPLC had falsely labeled as “hate groups” were considering the possibility of suing SPLC for defamation. The article cited remarks that various noteworthy individuals had recently made about SPLC and its deceitful use of the “hate group” smear as a fundraising tactic. One particularly significant remark came from former SPLC employee Bob Moser, who described SPLC’s annual “hate-group list” as “a masterstroke of [Morris] Dees’ marketing talents” which leads countless “mainstream outlets [to] write about the ‘rising tide of hate’ discovered by the SPLC’s researchers,” and leads reporters to “frequently refer to the list when they write about the groups.” Some additional examples:
According to The Progressive‘s John Egerton, Morris Dees “viewed civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals.”
Megan L. Meier, a partner at the Clare Locke legal firm, said: “The SPLC’s ‘hate group’ accusation is a financial and reputational death sentence, effectively equating organizations to the KKK. No right-thinking person wants to be associated with the KKK, so the SPLC’s ‘hate group’ accusation is incredibly effective at shaming organizations and causing them to be shunned by donors, fundraising platforms, service providers, the media, and others. Shaming and shunning are hallmarks of what makes a statement ‘defamatory’ under the common law.”
Thomas Hern, national grassroots director at ACT for America, said: “We are happy to see that the Southern Poverty Law Center is now being exposed for the deceitful and highly political organization we have known them to be,” told PJ Media. “For years the SPLC has gone unchecked with their slanderous labels and we hope that this exposure will force a widespread denouncement of their once great organization…. The reckless behavior and blatantly defamatory actions of the SPLC has put our organization’s employees and members, including myself, in danger of radical leftist retaliation.”
Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and vice president of U.S. advocacy and administration at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said: “It is time for the media, major corporations, and big tech companies to cut ties with the SPLC once and for all. Today’s SPLC has zero credibility and its ‘making hate pay’ business model should be rejected…. [I]t is clear this group has defrauded the public for long enough…. Today’s SPLC is a corrupt fundraising scheme that capitalizes on fear by mixing legitimate societal concerns with baseless allegations against its ideological opponents. The media commits journalistic malpractice when it cuts and pastes the SPLC’s unfounded allegations and lies as fact…. The SPLC owes its donors and the public a detailed accounting of the allegations of misdeeds being made against it – in many instances by its current and former employees. The current scandal at the SPLC is devastating. I sympathize with the victims who have had to endure what appears to be an internal atmosphere marked by harassment, bigotry and discrimination.”
Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson characterized SPLC’s “hate map” as an “outright fraud” and a “willful deception designed to scare older liberals into writing checks to the SPLC.”
Daniel Schmid, litigation counsel at the falsely accused Christian law firm Liberty Counsel, said: “If you’re admitting that it’s done for purposes of fundraising, false, and intended to deceive older liberals, you’ve basically admitted all the elements of a Lanham Act and a defamation claim…. Knowing that you’re lying to trick northern liberals, you’ve admitted that your statement is false. You know you’re lying to them in an effort to get money…. The admission that it’s a fundraising ploy will get you closer to Lanham Act actions. [In a Lanham Act case], you have to prove the speech is commercial. If you’re admitting you’re trying to raise money, that’s commercial.”
Indoctrination of Young School Children
In 2020, SPLC partnered with the Loudon County, Virginia public school system to develop the new history curriculum which deliberately paints America in a highly negative light, focusing heavily on slavery and social injustice. “Sugarcoating or ignoring slavery until later grades makes students more upset by or even resistant to true stories about American history,” the curriculum reads. “Long before we teach algebra, we teach its component parts. We should structure history instruction the same way.”
The new curriculum also highlights “activism and action civics” opportunities for young students in kindergarten through second grade. “Students should study examples of role models from the past and present, and ask themselves, ‘how can I make a difference?’” the guidelines explain. “These conversations [about slavery] should lead into discussions about current injustices — particularly those that continue to disenfranchise and oppress the descendants of enslaved people — and possibilities for activism and reform.”
The political tenor of the new lessons was confirmed by a longtime Loudon County elementary teacher who spoke with the Washington Free Beacon on the condition of anonymity because she feared for her job if her real views about the new curriculum were made known. “I teach lower grades in elementary school.… [Never before] did I have to teach about slavery,” the teacher said. “Our standards were always [to] teach about famous Americans, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., people like that. But, it was all very general and the bigger picture, we highlighted their accomplishments.” She noted that the slavery is usually taught beginning in the fourth grade when students have greater maturity to understand it in its historical context.
“What they’re really trying to do is divide people as early as they can, starting now with kindergarteners,” the teacher added. “They’re really going to be inciting hate. They’re pointing out that there’s ‘whiteness’ and ‘blackness’, and that’s crazy. We never taught about that in school…. We learn about how to get along with one another and be kind and respect others. But now, with this new curriculum that they’re adding, it’s going to do the total opposite.”
Max Eden, an education policy expert at the libertarian-minded Manhattan Institute, concurred that the curriculum was not suitable for young children. “Students aren’t prepared when they’re five years old to develop a nuanced sense of history and political processes, and pros and cons of different side effects, and unintended consequences,” Eden said. “What the real goal of this is, by introducing [slavery] this young, is to try to get the left-wing, Nikole Hannah-Jones [creator of the 1619 Project], meta-political narrative into kids’ heads as soon as possible, which is basically trying to compel them to believe that because slavery happened, therefore, America is evil and you must follow the leftist idea of … how we need to overturn power in society.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2023-03-01 14:55:292023-03-01 15:07:05Did The Southern Poverty Law Center and FBI collude to designate ‘traditional Catholics’ as terrorists?
West Point affirmed that prospective candidates should be vaccinated against COVID-19, weeks after the mandate was officially revoked, according to multiple statements obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
After the DCNF reached out, West Point reversed course, saying it no longer required the vaccine for new cadets.
“There is no telling how many potential cadets this arbitrary mandate has dissuaded from serving our nation,” Republican Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana told the DCNF.
The U.S. Military Academy at West Point affirmed a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for incoming cadets weeks after the Secretary of Defense did away with the military vaccine mandate, according to a spokesperson and separate communications viewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
West Point had revoked travel restrictions for unvaccinated members as of Jan. 31, according to an official Army order obtained by the DCNF and an academy spokesperson, and as of Friday the Army formally repealed all internal COVID-19 vaccine requirements in line with Department of Defense (DOD) orders from earlier in January. Yet even in late February, after the application deadline had passed, the academy’s admissions office confirmed a vaccination requirement for incoming new cadets, according to West Point communications viewed by the DCNF and a spokesperson.
“There is no telling how many potential cadets this arbitrary mandate has dissuaded from serving our nation,” Republican Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana told the DCNF.
West Point’s application deadline for high school seniors occurs in early February, according to the website.
Congress’s defense bill for 2023 included a provision ordering Austin to rescind the COVID-19 mandate. According to the bill, DOD had one month starting when President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on Dec. 23 to issue new guidance.
The Army preemptively paused discharges for unvaccinated troops while the secretary developed a new policy.
But, the West Point admissions office in late February told an inquirer that West Point’s current guidance is that the incoming class of cadets must be vaccinated in a statement obtained by the DCNF. The statement noted that, due to recent changes to DOD COVID-19 policy, the requirement could change before the next incoming class reports to the academy in June.
Further, when the DCNF reached out on Feb. 22, a spokesperson in the academy’s public affairs office said “the policy is that individuals seeking accession into the Army must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”
The spokesperson cited Department of Defense’s Army Directive 2022-02, which initiated the discharge process for soldiers who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine in contravention of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s August 2021 department-wide mandate. The policy affirmed the vaccine requirement for both current and prospective recruits, including those seeking to join the military academy.
West Point “will follow current policy for initiating administrative separation and disenrollment proceedings for cadets and cadet candidates pursuant to reference 1e [USMA organizational guidelines], as appropriate. The basis for separation will be ‘Misconduct,’” the directive reads.
Army Directive 2022-02 cites the August 2021 order to define “fully vaccinated” status. Austin revoked that memo on Jan. 10.
The academy spokesperson acknowledged the fluid situation and suggested things could change soon.
On Feb. 23, just over 24 hours after the previous email, the public affairs office followed up with the DCNF, stating that “the U.S. Military Academy no longer requires a COVID-19 vaccination for candidates applying to West Point” and citing Army Directive 2022-02 again.
The Public Affairs Office explained it had not been made aware of the revision and that the earliest communication available was identified the day prior.
Then, the Army released an official policy Friday evening allowing unvaccinated individuals to seek admission to the academy.
“I hereby rescind all Department of the Army policies specifically associated with the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination mandate” to include that the vaccine is “no longer required for accessions or pre-commissioning programs,” Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth wrote in the memo.
West Point did not respond to multiple follow-up queries from the DCNF earlier on Feb. 24.
Rep. Waltz & @RepJimBanks sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of the Army Wormuth to express concerns over the historic recruitment crisis facing the U.S. Army today and to call for public release of important recruiting and retaining survey data.
“At a time when recruitment numbers are already dangerously low, our service academies should not be discriminating against applicants,” Banks told the DCNF. “The lack of transparency and unclear guidelines surrounding this mandate is just the latest example of bureaucracy at its worst!”
Although all branches of the armed services struggled with recruiting, the Army suffered the worst deficit relative to its goals, coming 15,000 recruits short of the 60,000 target.
West Point was barring unvaccinated cadets from traveling off-base in official capacity in January even though they were no longer in danger of being discharged, the DCNF previously reported.
A DOD revision to COVID-19 related force protection guidance on Jan. 31 ending monitoring cadets based on vaccination status and rescinding travel guidance, a West Point spokesperson previously confirmed to the DCNF.
Paragraph 3.D.15. of the Army’s Feb. 2 order, a change to the service branch’s existing COVID-19 guidance, removed restrictions on unvaccinated soldiers and cadets. “Effective immediately, not fully vaccinated individuals may conduct any official travel that is appropriate under the joint travel regulations and not otherwise prohibited by army regulation or the force health protection guidance revision,” it states.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact email@example.com.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2023-02-27 11:28:232023-02-27 11:30:20West Point Said Applicants Needed The COVID Vaccine Weeks After Mandate Ended
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, a Cuban immigrant, said in 2021: “I came to this country as an infant, brought by parents who understood the hope and promise of America. Today, young children are arriving at our border with that same hope. We can do this.”
But Mayorkas’ dream has become a nightmare for many unaccompanied alien children in the U.S. today. When he was making his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, Mayorkas also talked about ending the Trump administration’s policy of returning unaccompanied children to their home countries, one of more than three dozen policy changes the Biden administration has made to open the border. Now, the U.S. government has lost track of tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors, leaving them in the clutches of sex traffickers and exploitative employers. These children work at jobs producing brand-name products you probably consume on a regular basis, products sold by Walmart, Target, J. Crew, Ben & Jerry’s, Fruit of the Loom, Ford, General Motors, the list goes on. They help make your Cheerios and your Cheetos. In the process, some have lost limbs in factories, had their spines crushed on construction sites, and a dozen have died on the job since 2017. The lucky ones just have to work a long shift after their school day, with no end in sight.
Mayorkas’ dream is also a nightmare for towns along the southern border. The House Judiciary Committee took testimony at the border on millions of dollars of unpaid hospital bills and the other ravaging effects of illegal immigration on nearby communities. The federal government leaves the hospital bills unpaid. Meanwhile, healthcare for U.S. citizens is delayed or only available in big cities far away. Separately, it was reported a Yuma official said the strain illegal immigration has put on city services has brought the city to the brink of collapse.
Mayorkas’ dream brought death to 70,000 Americans who died of fentanyl overdoses in 2021. The cartels like dealing in fentanyl because it’s easy to produce and doesn’t depend on the weather, like opium. Cartel influence inside the U.S. is growing, with the Sinaloa cartel hiring so many drug smugglers and human traffickers it is now the largest employer in Cochise County, Arizona. Arizona troopers recently seized enough fentanyl in one pick-up truck to kill almost 800,000 people. This problem is not staying at the border. Butler County PA near Pittsburgh formally ended its sanctuary status because of the role illegal immigration is playing in the fentanyl crisis.
Mayorkas’ dream is also killing migrants in unprecedented numbers. The border patrol recorded 880 illegal migrant deaths in the last fiscal year alone, the highest number ever. People trying to cross the border and not making it. And these are only the ones we know about. Who knows how many corpses are still out in the desert somewhere, their bones picked clean by scavengers. On top of their tragedies, we can pile the lives shattered by illegal alien criminals who would have been deported under any sane administration. Mayorkas’ DHS freed more than 1,100 of them in December alone. Who knows how many more future murderers and drunk drivers are among them?
Added costs in the billions, higher taxes, overloaded emergency rooms, increased crime, overcrowded classrooms, destruction of property – Mayorkas dreams and people suffer, in every state and congressional district in the land. Just remember that when you’re eating your Cheetos.
The founder of True the Vote Catherine Engelbrecht in an email titled FILED: True the Vote Emergency Motion Reveals Worldwide Conspiracy wrote,
On Friday, February 25th, True the Vote, Gregg Phillips, and I filed an Emergency Motion to inspect Konnech’s electronic devices (specifically, items seized by Los Angeles County law enforcement during their October 2022 raid on Konnech properties in Michigan).
What we have said about Konnech is true. Our elections are at risk. Some of the largest counties in the United States, along with several states, are using software that is being developed in, run from, and monitored by, China. This must be stopped.
Please stand with us – there is a tremendous amount of work yet ahead. We will not back down. We will not quit.
“Defendants have advised the public that Konnech was not only storing personal identifying information of American election workers and American customer data on insecure servers in China, but that it was permitting unvetted nationals based in China access to the China-based servers and to the software itself.”
“In approximately September 2022, following accusations made by True the Vote, Plaintiff began investigating the extent of the information provided by Defendant Konnech to the programmers based out of Wuhan, China. Plaintiff confirmed that Defendants Yu and Konnech had been providing to these Chinese programmers private data of poll workers, to include social security numbers and other personally identifying information.”
It’s now being reported AZ Governor Katie Hobbs as well as several Maricopa County Supervisors may have accepted bribes from the Sinaloa cartel in the form of phony mortgages or deeds of trust.
Testimony at the Arizona Senate & House Oversite hearings from Arizona House Special Session Jacqueline Breger, investigator under Attorney John Thaler, alleges Katie Hobbs, Runbeck election services, and a number of government officials were named for receiving Sinaloa cartel bribes.
TPG: The Sinaloa Cartels and the treasonous Americans who work with them are destroying our country by flooding Arizona with dangerous drugs and crime.
The Gateway Pundit reported that Tempe Police seized over 30 million lethal doses of fentanyl. In 2022, the DEA nationwide seized over 50.6 million deadly fentanyl-laced fake prescription pills and over 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder, half of which came from Arizona. “I want to be crystal clear. The drugs that are flooding Arizona every single day are sourced primarily by one evil entity, the Sinaloa Drug Cartel,” said Phoenix DEA Special Agent in Charge Cheri Oz.
The Arizona Senate and House Elections Committees held a joint special meeting on Thursday and heard an explosive presentation by Breger, which, if true, exposed information regarding massive corruption and collusion between American politicians, appointed government officials, and the Sinaloa Cartels.
Breger identifies herself as a longtime Arizona resident and a forensic investigator with the Harris/Thaler Law Corporation, investigating multi-state racketeering and corruption. She states that she holds a master’s degree in marketing and honors degrees in Finance, Financial Accounting, Business, statistics, economics, and business strategy.
She told the legislators on Thursday that attorney John Thaler investigated money laundering and racketeering in Maricopa County and reviewed over 120,000 documents which include “fake notarizations, fake deeds of trust, fraudulent buyers and or sellers of the real property transactions, as well as other companies used in real estate transactions, such as real estate brokers, mortgage companies Title and Escrow companies, real estate inspection companies, service companies.”
Breger made serious accusations against named individuals in government positions and others involved in the alleged scheme. This includes two citizens of Mesa named Dawna Rae Chavez and her daughter, Brittany Rae Chavez, who are both described by Breger as “principal preparers of the documents necessary to affect the racketeering enterprise.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2023-02-27 05:14:002023-02-27 05:19:02Katie Hobbs, the Governor of Arizona, Allegedly Accepted Bribes From the Sinaloa Drug Cartel