10/4/19

Time to Set the Record Straight on Slavery

By: James Simpson | American Thinker

Antifa is the most public, in-your-face element of the communist Left’s decades-long effort to vilify America as a bastion of racism and “white supremacy.”  Normal people know that this characterization of the United States is simply not true.  We have been world leaders in promoting racial harmony and reconciliation and have bent over backwards to aid in the advancement of minorities.  Today, for example, blacks, Hispanics, and women have the lowest unemployment rates in U.S. history.  Furthermore, certain minority groups are eligible for racial preferences and set-asides unavailable to whites and even those minorities — for example, Asians — who excel.

The poorest people in America are better off than people in most other nations.  A recent study found that when you include the myriad welfare programs available to Americans, the bottom 20 percent of income-earners in the U.S. are better off materially than everyone in most of the nations of Europe.  Another study found that the bottom 10 percent in the U.S. do better than the top 10 percent in Russia and that our nation’s poor do better than virtually everyone in India and better than 85 percent of those living in China.

The Left media ignore all this.  They would have you believe we are constantly on the cusp of reverting to the days of Jim Crow.  Slavery in America ended with the Civil War, which cost more American lives than any other war in U.S. history.  With the complete dismantling of postwar discriminatory practices by 1964, and continual efforts to boost the affluence of minorities, talk of slavery and reparations should be a thing of the distant past, but a race-hustling industry has kept it alive by misinforming successive generations of students and indoctrinating minorities to hate everything American, while (mostly white) leftists constantly agitate to sow and inflame racial division.

A look into the past is instructive.  According to Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, 12.5 million African slaves were shipped to the New World between 1525 and 1866, and 10.7 million (about 86 percent) survived the trip.  Of these, only 450,000 (about 4 percent of the total) were sent to America.  The rest were shipped to South America and the Caribbean.  Brazil alone received 4.9 million.  Why are there no calls for reparations in Brazil?  And the black slave trade to the West pales in comparison to the white and black slave trade conducted by Muslim nations of Africa and the Middle East in its barbarity and numbers.

The much larger and infinitely more barbaric Muslim slave trade began in about 711, capturing both whites and blacks in numbers much higher than those taken by the West, and Muslim slave-traders provided over 80 percent of those black slaves sold to the West.  Of the slaves captured by Muslims for their own use, 80 to 90 percent died on the way to market.  Of those shipped to North Africa for sale to Western slavers, about 30–50 percent died en route.  Males slated for Muslim markets were castrated.  Only 25 percent survived the operation.  Their descendants in those nations are much smaller in number because most male African slaves were used as eunuchs and worked to death.  Estimates of total black enslavement in Muslim nations range from 11 million to 32 million.  Given the high mortality rate of capture and transport, the impact on black African tribes must have been genocidal.

The Muslim Ottomans, the Barbary pirates, Crimean Tatars, and Turks enslaved European, Russian, Mediterranean, and Caucasus whites between the 15th and 19th centuries.  According to The Islamic Trade in European Slaves by Emmet Scott, the most conservative estimate is 15 million white slaves.  Women and boys were preferred.  Most of the women were sold into sex slavery, while boys were castrated and used as eunuchs.  Crimean Tatars, who enslaved about 3 million, gave older men of little value to Tatar youths, who killed them for sport.

Why do we not hear a peep from any of these self-righteous social justice warriors about this travesty?  Where is talk of reparations for whites or the many blacks enslaved by Muslim nations?

Slavery has been with man in one form or another since the dawn of time.  It took Western nations to bring it to an end.  Contrary to what the Left will tell you, this goal was enshrined in our nation’s founding documents.  This was the consequence of our great Judeo-Christian heritage, which also gave rise to our unprecedented affluence and stability.

Scott writes:

The great humanitarian impulse to end slavery, from the late eighteenth century onwards, came entirely from the Christian West, and by the mid-nineteenth century it was stamped out completely in most Christian lands.

In the Middle East, it was officially ended only due to pressure from the West:

That slavery no longer exists (officially at least) in the majority of Muslim territories is due entirely to the efforts of Westerners, and in fact Muslim societies vigorously resisted all attempts by Europeans to stamp out the slave trade in Africa during the nineteenth and early twentieth century.  It was not in until the second half of the twentieth century that slavery was finally abolished in the Gulf States and the Arabian Peninsula — after intense Western pressure.  Is it not about time that some of this information got through to students in our schools and colleges?

But slavery has not been abolished.  Mauritania, the last nation to publicly condone slavery, officially outlawed it finally in 2007.  However, the truth is that slavery in Mauritania is alive and well, with as much as 10–20 percent of the population (340,000 to 680,000) in bondage.  Algeria (106,000), Sudan (35,000 or more), Libya (48,000), and certain other nations still practice slavery.

Famous black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan excoriates America for our history of slavery, but despite repeated calls to take action against Muslim nations that continue to enslave both black and white, Farrakhan has remained totally silent, as have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton — despite Sharpton witnessing slavery in Sudan firsthand.  Former President Obama, seen in a recently discovered 2005 photo with Louis Farrakhan, hasn’t made a peep.  Why not?

Where are the complaints over Middle East and African slave trading that continued legally until 2007, and still continues illegally in that part of the world?  Where are the hooded Antifa goons, smashing windows and heads and firebombing autos and buildings in protest of “Islamic supremacy” and “Muslim nationalism”?

Just as the Left demands that America pony up trillions of dollars for the bogus “global warming” agenda, while it ignores the much larger pollution quotient produced by China and Russia, it now demands trillions in “reparations” for slavery from the nation that imported the fewest slaves of any and, along with other Western nations, brought about, for the first time in world history, a complete end to legal slavery throughout the world.  It’s time to set the record straight and end the Left’s constant agitation and provocation that deliberately, and fraudulently, fan the flames of division in our great nation.

10/4/19

Russia Collusion 2.0

By: James Simpson | CDJ News

The most ironic aspect of this entire Trump-Russia collusion charade is that Hillary Clinton and the DNC colluded with Russians to essentially manufacture the entire thing. Now, following President Trump’s congratulatory call to newly-elected (May 20, 2019) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Democrats have once again resurrected a phony Trump-Russia collusion campaign, only this time, it’s Trump-Ukraine. However, the ones who colluded with Ukraine were the Democrats, and this fact is well-established.

Since Donald Trump’s election we have witnessed, over and over again, Democrats accusing the President of doing exactly what they have been doing and are still doing. This is an eye-popping case in point. Without the wholesale complicity of the national news media, they couldn’t pull this off for more than a day. However, by refusing to publish, or even examine the clear evidence, the media is treating the American public to an entirely contrived, fraudulent effort to once again drag the President through the mud to cripple him in advance of the 2020 election.

We all could avoid another torturous, drawn out, phony investigation if only the media would do its job. A few years ago, one outlet did. I’m sure they are regretting it today.

According to a a very revealing January 2017 article in the left-wing journal Politico, Democrats engaged in a wholesale effort to dig up dirt on candidate Trump using Ukrainian sources. DNC operative, former Clinton staffer and Hillary supporter, Alexandra Chalupa, had begun investigating Paul Manafort in 2014. Chalupa admits that “when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.” Chalupa claimed the Ukrainian embassy “worked directly with reporters” in an effort coordinated with the DNC and other political allies against Trump.

Chalupa worked with Oksana Shulyar, a top aide to Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly. Shulyar denied they worked on anything related to Trump, however,  according to Politico, “Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. ‘Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,’  recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev.  ‘They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,’ he said, adding ‘Oksana was keeping it all quiet,’ but ‘the embassy worked very closely with’ Chalupa.”

Here’s a timeline of events:

  • April 6. Chalupa meets with staff of Mary Kaptur (D-Ohio), co-chair of Congressional Ukrainian Caucus. Later, Kaptur’s office announces she intends to propose creating an independent commission to investigate “possible outside interference in our elections.”
  • April 12. Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkova meets with David Kramer, adviser to Sen. John McCain. Sought meetings with many other Congress members and reporters.
  • April 28. Chalupa discusses research about Paul Manafort with 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine at Library of Congress. Chalupa invites investigative reporter Michael Isikoff and begins working with him. Isikoff writes Yahoo article on Manafort. NOTE: Isikoff later meets Dossier author Christopher Steele in a meeting organized by the State Department. His subsequent article was used to verify the Steele Dossier but was actually based on information provided by Steele. So the entire thing was a fraud. Isikoff was in on this entire agenda from early on.
  • May 3. Chalupa email promises DNC “a big Trump component… that will hit in next few weeks and something I’m working on you should be aware of.”
  • May 19. Manafort becomes Trump campaign chairman.
  • June 30. Newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) signs MOU with FBI for “joint work on crimes related to international money laundering, international asset recovery, and Ukrainian high-level officials’ bribery and corruption.”
  • Sometime in 2016 Manafort FISA surveillance restarted. Continues into 2017.
  • July Arsen Avakov, Ukrainian minister of internal affairs, calls Trump a “clown” and “an even bigger danger to the US than terrorism.”
  • August 14. NABU accuses Manafort of $12.7 million in undisclosed Yanukovych payments.
  • August 19. Paul Manafort resigns from Trump campaign. Ukrainian Parliamentarian holds press conference on Paul Manafort’s ties to former Ukrainian President Yanukovych.
  • September 23. Michael Isikoff publishes Yahoo article on Trump campaign advisor and Russia hand, Carter Page based on Steele Dossier. Page helped FBI in a 2013 case against Evgeny Buryakov.but that apparently does not help him at all.
  • October 21. FBI obtains FISA warrant on Page, based on Dossier and Yahoo report.

Can we say Ukrainian collusion?

Meanwhile, in March 2016, then VP Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine if they did not fire a prosecutor investigating Biden’s son Hunter’s lucrative deal with the Ukrainian government through the Ukrainian energy firm, Burisma Holdings. The prosecutor was fired. This looks a lot like extortion, a federal crime. Incredible, because Biden has bragged about getting the prosecutor fired in a widely distributed video.

Biden had already funneled $1.8 billion to Ukraine while Hunter received more than $166,000 per month for over a year, an amount totaling $3.1 million during that period. That looks a lot like bribery, designed to give the Ukrainians access and influence within the Obama administration – another federal crime. Hillary similarly received millions from foreign governments by offering her influence as Secretary of State at a price. Apples don’t fall far from the tree.

But its even worse than that. Tyler O’Neil of PJ Media reports:

The Biden family’s dealings with this Ukrainian company involved getting one of the country’s most notorious mob bankers, Ihor Kolomoisky, off the U.S. government visa ban list. Under Biden’s leadership, $3 billion in aid went to Ukraine, and his son’s company was implicated in the disappearance of $1.8 billion of that money.

Hunter Biden got a seat on the board of Burisma Holdings through Devon Archer, a top fundraiser for former senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid. Archer in turn was Kerry stepson Chris Heinz’s roommate at college, and Heinz had joined with Hunter Biden to partner with the Communist Chinese in a deal that netted them $1.5 billion. Meanwhile, in what certainly looks like a quid pro quo, then VP Joe Biden essentially gave away the South China Sea to the Communists. This is not merely corruption, it is a betrayal of our nation that threatens national security. Archer, by the way, was convicted in 2018, along with two others, of defrauding a native American tribe to the tune of over $60 million.

President Trump’s discussion with Zelensky focused on Ukraine’s role in the 2016 DNC effort, which was clearly an attempt to influence the election using foreign (Russia and Ukraine) sources. The Democrats accuse Trump of trying to rig the 2020 election by digging up dirt on Biden, when in reality they are simply trying to deflect attention from themselves.

The behavior of Biden, as well as the entire Democrat caucus, is clearly unethical. It can best be described as a mob operation. Biden extorted concessions from Ukraine while aiding and abetting some of its most notorious criminals. Paul Manafort sits in prison today for trivial crimes that pale in comparison to what Joe Biden has done.

Running for office does not insulate Biden from criminal investigation. It is the president’s duty to enforce the law, and he would be abdicating his authority by ignoring that responsibility in the face of Biden’s glaring criminality. Trump is engaged in routing out the rampant corruption Democrats have brought to the political process. Doing so is his responsibility. If the Democrats’ many crimes go unanswered, the rule of law will no longer hold sway in America. Our nation will be as good as lost.

The press and Democrat Party meanwhile continue to hype the fraudulent Trump/Russia collusion narrative, even getting support from certain Republicans who should know better.

President Trump is an existential threat to the Deep State, the Establishment, or whatever you choose to name it. As he promised in 2016, he is working for the American people, a fact the DC Cabal does not want and cannot accept, because it directly threatens the gravy train they have been fattening themselves on for decades to the detriment of our nation’s very survival.

08/2/19

CAIR Islamophobia Report: A First-Class Fraud

By: James Simpson | Center For Security Policy

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has jumped in on the effort to paint its opponents as “Islamophobes,” the latest twist in the Left’s never-ending effort to smear opponents with names like “racist,” “xenophobe,” etc. And while this repulsive strategy makes a mockery of the First Amendment and has reduced American political dialogue to infantile, elementary school name-calling, its true goal is to marginalize, deplatform and defund its opponents, especially those that pose a threat to its subversive agenda. This paper exposes for all to see, just how transparently dishonest and hypocritical CAIR and its allies in the Red-Green Axis truly are in this their latest “Islamophobia” report, and links them to the worldwide effort of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to impose blasphemy laws against anyone who would speak ill of any aspect of Islam.

CAIR Islamophobia Report- A First-Class Fraud PDF

The Left has become increasingly aggressive about silencing its critics. In late June 2019, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released its latest undercover video showing Google’s frightening institutional bias and its apparent intention to manipulate public opinion to influence the 2020 elections. Google is just one of many on the Left seeking to mislead, discredit, defame, and silence the Left’s opponents. But they are not alone. In what we have called the Red-Green Axis, Islamic groups in the U.S. and abroad have partnered with the Left to silence anyone who questions any aspect of Islam, including Islamic terrorism. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently published its latest effort in a piece titled Hijacked by Hate: American Philanthropy and the Islamophobia Network.

It would be a joke, but it isn’t funny. “Islamophobia” is the latest in a long list of contrived “phobias” invented by the Left and its Muslim allies to continue the Left’s time-honored vilification tactic. It is an unscrupulous, intellectually dishonest way of dealing with legitimate criticism that has reduced political discourse in the U.S. to infantile, elementary school name-calling. The Left owns this outcome, but the Muslims are catching up.

Continue reading

07/8/19

CAIR’s New “Islamophobia” Report: A Partnership with the SPLC

By: James Simpson | Capital Research Center

CAIR’s New “Islamophobia” Report (full series)
A Partnership with the SPLC | Redefining the Terms of Engagement | Padding the Numbers to Foment Panic
 CAIR’s Left-leaning Coalition | The Larger Threat

Summary: The Council on American-Islamic Relations has a history fraught with questionable associations and dubious claims related to Islam and terrorism. In its latest report, CAIR targets numerous nonprofit groups and grantmakers for “funding hate.” But these so-called “Islamophobic” groups are not hate groups at all—unless you use the definition of “hate” promoted by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center. This careful analysis of CAIR’s report will debunk many of the organization’s central arguments.

“Islamophobia” is the latest in a long list of contrived “phobias” invented by the Left and its Muslim allies to continue the progressive movement’s long tradition of shaming and vilifying its critics. It is an intellectually dishonest response to legitimate criticism that has reduced political discourse to shrill name-calling without substantive debate or justification.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) recent report, “Hijacked by Hate: American Philanthropy and the Islamophobia Network” is a case in point. The report, released in April 2019, claims that “traditional American charities, foundations, and philanthropic institutions are being used to anonymize and funnel money from powerful donors to the Islamophobia Network.”

The existence of an “Islamophobia Network” is dubious on its face, but the report goes on to argue that “Islamophobia” is  a $1.5 billion enterprise that needs to be stopped with education, auditing, and implementing policies to halt the funding of certain nonprofit groups that CAIR deems to be “Islamophobic.”

Continue reading

07/8/19

CAIR’s New “Islamophobia” Report: Redefining the Terms of Engagement

By: James Simpson | Capital Research Center

CAIR’s New “Islamophobia” Report (full series)
A Partnership with the SPLC | Redefining the Terms of Engagement | Padding the Numbers to Foment Panic
 CAIR’s Left-leaning Coalition | The Larger Threat

Summary: The Council on American-Islamic Relations has a history fraught with questionable associations and dubious claims related to Islam and terrorism. In its latest report, CAIR targets numerous nonprofit groups and grantmakers for “funding hate.” But these so-called “Islamophobic” groups are not hate groups at all—unless you use the definition of “hate” promoted by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center. This careful analysis of CAIR’s report will debunk many of the organization’s central arguments.

What Is Islamophobia?

CAIR doesn’t exactly say. That is actually understandable because it allows them to leave it open to broad interpretation. One of their supporters was honest enough to define the term in a Facebook post (which incidentally escaped the notice of Facebook’s censors, unlike some posts critical of Islam). Here’s a screenshot of the post:

This fairly exhaustive list includes words that the terrorists themselves use to describe their own actions. According to his bio, Esam Omeish is “chief of General and Laparoscopic Surgery” at INOVA Alexandria, Virginia, hospital. He is a former leader of the Muslim Students Association and the Muslim American Society—both prominent Muslim Brotherhood groups. He is also a founding board member of the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Falls Church, VA. Omeish is also director of the Washington Trust Foundation, a holding company for over $5 million in real estate owned by CAIR, which describes its mission as “to support the charitable purposes of the CAIR Foundation.” Would it be “Islamophobic” to call this a conflict of interest?

It must be added that Omeish’s definition parallels that found in U.N. Resolution 16/18Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief. The U.N. signed 16/18 in 2011, the result of a decades-long effort by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—comprised of 56 nations and the Palestinian Territories, the second largest intergovernmental organization in the world—to enact blasphemy laws through the U.N. According to 16/18, not only can you not criticize any aspect of Islam, but to do so is tantamount to “incitement to violence.” Hillary Clinton supported 16/18, as did President Barack Obama.

Continue reading

07/8/19

CAIR’s New “Islamophobia” Report: Padding the Numbers to Foment Panic

By: James Simpson | Capital Research Center

CAIR’s New “Islamophobia” Report (full series)
A Partnership with the SPLC | Redefining the Terms of Engagement | Padding the Numbers to Foment Panic
 CAIR’s Left-leaning Coalition | The Larger Threat

Summary: The Council on American-Islamic Relations has a history fraught with questionable associations and dubious claims related to Islam and terrorism. In its latest report, CAIR targets numerous nonprofit groups and grantmakers for “funding hate.” But these so-called “Islamophobic” groups are not hate groups at all—unless you use the definition of “hate” promoted by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center. This careful analysis of CAIR’s report will debunk many of the organization’s central arguments.

More Tactics of Misdirection

The CAIR Islamophobia report borrows from a method the SPLC and other leftists use all the time. They take a quote from a targeted opponent and present it without context. For example, of ACT for America, CAIR ominously states:

ACT for America stages nationwide marches against ‘sharia law.’

Why is that so unacceptable? CAIR and other Muslim organizations partner with communist groups like Black Lives Matter and join them in anti-American street protests all the time. Does anyone attempt to stop them? More to the point, is protest illegal? Like all public protests or marches, ACT for America’s demonstrations are similarly protected by the First Amendment. But CAIR would like to curb such demonstrations by those who oppose them.

ACT’s legislation and agendas include: combating terrorism, defending constitutional freedoms, immigration reform, supporting military and law enforcement and defending Israel.

Continue reading

07/6/19

CAIR’s New “Islamophobia” Report: CAIR’s Left-leaning Coalition

By: James Simpson | Capital Research Center

Summary: The Council on American-Islamic Relations has a history fraught with questionable associations and dubious claims related to Islam and terrorism. In its latest report, CAIR targets numerous nonprofit groups and grantmakers for “funding hate.” But these so-called “Islamophobic” groups are not hate groups at all—unless you use the definition of “hate” promoted by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center. This careful analysis of CAIR’s report will debunk many of the organization’s central arguments.

CAIR’s Red/Green Axis Network

Now let’s look at CAIR’s network of allies. I have dubbed this network the Red/Green Axis. It’s big and commands billions of dollars in assets and revenue. Researchers have no need to add multiple years of revenue to find billions of dollars.

So how much does CAIR take in annually? On its own, CAIR receives $14 million through its foundation and network of offices and has amassed $11.6 million in net assets, rivaling what the six “Islamophobe” nonprofits pull in, and outpacing them in assets.

Continue reading

07/6/19

CAIR’s New “Islamophobia” Report: The Larger Threat

By: James Simpson | Capital Research Center

Summary: The Council on American-Islamic Relations has a history fraught with questionable associations and dubious claims related to Islam and terrorism. In its latest report, CAIR targets numerous nonprofit groups and grantmakers for “funding hate.” But these so-called “Islamophobic” groups are not hate groups at all—unless you use the definition of “hate” promoted by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center. This careful analysis of CAIR’s report will debunk many of the organization’s central arguments.

CAIR the Domestic Branch of a Foreign Terrorist Organization

It’s important to note that CAIR was originally founded in 1994 as the domestic front group for the Palestinian terrorist group HAMAS, with Nihad Awad as director. CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust are also unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial, the largest U.S. trial of its kind.

Court documents revealed in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial further established connections with HAMAS among CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, and other U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups. A judge in the case concurred that CAIR was connected to HAMAS, and Nihad Awad himself was recorded in 1994 publicly describing his decision to support HAMAS. CAIR and the other groups remain on the list of unindicted co-conspirators and avoided prosecution only because their indictments were squelched by the Obama Justice Department.

Furthermore, CAIR, like every other Muslim Brotherhood group in the U.S., now takes its orders directly from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as Turkey has become the de facto leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is odd, because Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates have all declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Continue reading

04/19/19

Truth and the Ability to Speak It Under Direct Attack

By: Jim Simpson | Center For Security Policy

The common complaint that “free speech” should be protected, even when it’s ugly, implicitly accepts the Left’s argument that we are trying to protect the First Amendment rights of Nazis, White Supremacists, and others with a bad smell. But it really isn’t about protecting free speech. The Left and their Muslim allies can and do say anything they want, no matter how malodorous, obscene, dishonest, misleading or defamatory, and get away with it every day. It is about truth vs a totalitarian agenda, and the despots want to shut us up.

The attack that claimed fifty lives at the Al Noor mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand brought immediate, predictable responses from Democrat politicians, the media, the organized Left and Muslim groups. Commenters from CNN to New York Mayor Bill De Blasio blamed “intolerance, “an epidemic of hatred and fear,” and other shibboleths.[1] Presidential hopeful Cory Booker blamed “The rising tide of white supremacy and Islamophobia…”[2] Virtually all placed some blame on Trump. Nihad Awad, director of The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), blamed President Trump directly, “We hold you responsible for this growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the country and in Europe…”[3]

The timing of the attack couldn’t have been better. A real cynic might even suspect it was part of the plan.[4] Rush Limbaugh speculated on his show the day after the attack, “You can’t immediately discount this. The left is this insane, they are this crazy.”[5]

Continue reading
03/20/19

How Long Will Media Use SPLC’s Garbage Hate List To Smear People?

By: James Simpson | The Federalist

Now about 60 organizations have either sued or are considered suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for its fraudulent smears. It’s about time.

Like other mainstream publications, Roll Call regularly stoops to citing the thoroughly discredited Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source for labeling “hate” groups. One recent such article was titled “Among the ‘Jewish groups’ Trump cites, one with neo-Nazi ties.” The author had worked for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and this was clearly part of Democrats’ effort to cover Pelosi and derail criticisms of Ilhan Omar for anti-Semitism.

I work with both of the “hate” groups named in the article, the Center for Security Policy and ACT for America. SPLC’s characterization of them is fraudulent, like most of what it does. It is thus little surprise to anyone who knows anything that SPLC recently jettisoned founder Morris Dees over accusations of racism and sexual assault.

Despite years of takedowns of SPLC’s business model from both sides of the aisle, major media companies such as Amazon, PayPal, Twitter, the Washington Post, Facebook, Google, The New York Times, and more cite them and use their determinations for business decisions such as Amazon’s nonprofit donations program. When will this ever end? How many lawsuits and lies will it take?

The SPLC’s Hate Group Definitions Are Garbage

ACT does not now, nor did it ever have, ties to any “neo-Nazi.” Both ACT and the Center are long-established organizations whose leaders and scholars seek to inform and warn America about the subversive goals of Islamic radical groups in the United States, not everyday Muslims. Everyday Muslims are often as much the victims as others.

Most of the prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are either Muslim Brotherhood (MB) fronts or tied to the Deobandi movement of South Asia (which also has ties to MB). Both are aggressive, subversive organizations that engage in terrorism throughout the world.

In the United States, they generally use subversion as a more effective strategy and have insinuated their allies and agendas into the U.S. government, media, Hollywood, public schools and universities. This is helping encourage the recent rise of anti-Semitism in the United States.

They also engage in terrorism. The 2015 San Bernardino, California attack that killed 14 and wounded 22 was carried out by followers of Deobandi. Terrorists of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas attack and murder Israeli Jews and even Arabs on an almost daily basis in the West Bank, and—note to border wall opponents—in Israel proper before Israel built its wall.

Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose U.S. front is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Why doesn’t SPLC mention CAIR?

CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial and only avoided trouble because the Obama Justice Department under Eric Holder discontinued prosecutions of organizations named in the case. CAIR is also a subversive wrecking bar against the U.S. Constitution, conducting nonstop lawfare against America. CAIR’s Chicago branch—one of 27 in the United States—brags a tally of more than 5,200 lawsuits against U.S. governments.

Smearing People Is Big Business

Many of the “hate” groups on SPLC’s list are simply those it disagrees with politically. Rather than engage in legitimate debate, the SPLC seeks to destroy its political enemies with defamatory smear tactics. The Russian Communist Vladimir Lenin advocated this strategy, saying, “We must write in a language that inspires hate, revulsion, and scorn among the working class toward those who disagree with us.”

Frankfurt School Communist Herbert Marcuse developed that idea into what came to be known as “partisan tolerance”: tolerance only of leftist ideas, individuals, and groups, and a wholesale effort to discredit and silence opponents. Marcuse and other Communists worked closely for years with SPLC co-founder Julian Bond.

The SPLC regularly consorts with Communist organizations. In his pamphlet, “Rules for Radicals,” Saul Alinsky advocated the tactic of accusing opponents of hate, but SPLC was the first to institutionalize it. It has since spread far and wide, in media, universities, Hollywood, and in mindless chants of leftist protesters. Apparently now it reaches even into the editorial staff of Roll Call.

The SPLC never criticizes even the vilest leftist groups. For example, Antifa, which uses violence and increasingly expresses vitriolic, obscenity-laced hate and anti-Semitism, earns no criticism or “hate” designation from SPLC. Instead, the SPLC defends groups like Antifa against the big, bad Proud Boys!

When Occupy Wall Street Black Bloc activists attempted to bomb a bridge in Ohio and blow up the GOP convention in 2012, SPLC was asked why Black Bloc was not listed among its “hate” groups. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left” was the lame response.

The oldest Muslim Brotherhood front is the Muslim Students Association. It is responsible (along with the left) for the rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses. It never gets a mention by the SPLC.

There are countless other examples. The SPLC has singled out and destroyed numerous individuals and organizations using these smear tactics. It is a form of political terrorism.

SPLC’s Targets Have Begun to Fight Back

SPLC lost a $3.5 million lawsuit last year against Maajid Nawaz, a moderate Muslim the SPLC labeled an “extremist,” because he spoke out against Islamic extremism and terrorism. You literally can’t make this stuff up.

Now about 60 organizations have either sued or are considered suing the SPLC for its fraudulent smears. It’s about time. Thousands more could join in. It should be stripped of its 501(c)3 “nonpartisan” tax-exempt status and sued into penury. A dedicated prosecutor could easily make a claim that they are a continuing criminal enterprise and seize their assets under racketeering statutes.

The SPLC shows its extreme partisanship every day. Even liberals like Dana Milbank, Alexander Cockburn, and Stephen Bright have labeled the SPLC a fraud. It spends more than 20 percent of its income on fundraising and has amassed almost half a billiondollars in assets, some of which is squirreled away in overseas accounts.

Less than half of its revenues last year were needed to cover expenses, while its overtly socialist executives earn very capitalist salaries, and live like kings. Must be nice to be such conscience-free hypocrites.

Media Act as Megaphones for SPLC Smears

The Roll Call article cast both ACT and the Center as “hawks” on national defense as if that were somehow further evidence of bigotry or some other evil. That is idiotic, but “hawks” isn’t even applicable.

The Center for Security Policy staff, for example, includes former CIA officers, military and law enforcement specialists, and other national defense experts. These people take positions based on a careful evaluation of each situation, not some knee jerk “hawk” response to everything. The only knee-jerk reactions seem to be coming from the pages of Roll Call and other mainstream outlets that continue to give the SPLC credibility, like Facebook and The New York Times.

It is tragic that large outlets like these have joined the ranks of leftist smear merchants who have reduced political discourse in the United States to little more than infantile name-calling. The SPLC is one of the nastiest hate groups on the planet. It deliberately provokes division and anger in America on a daily basis to advance its extreme left agenda and rake in millions in donations.

Roll Call, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and all the others need to drop the SPLC as a consultant on “hate” groups, but since they are all of the same stripe, they probably won’t.

James Simpson is an economist, author, and investigative journalist. His latest book is “The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.” Follow Jim on Twitterand Facebook.