Hate in America

hate-horizontal

If you don’t read anything else this week, you should take the time to read this 3 part series on “hate”.

 

If someone went by the claims of “Black Lives Matter” and the “Southern Poverty Law Center” then they would believe that any minority person in America is in grave danger at all times.

They would believe that Churches across America are nothing more than places for racists to gather and think up ways to discriminate against people.

Since Obama became President in 2008 you can no longer disagree politically with ANY minority, especially Barrack Obama or you become a “racist”. The liberal media will proudly label you as a racist, and parade you on television for all to see.

They will tell their viewers that racism is to blame any time you disagree with any Democrat who happens to be a minority. And if you don’t believe the Federal government should pay for abortions then you “Hate women” and are labeled a sexist pig. Immediately they’ll throw out the phrase  “War on Women” that has become so popular to describe those who don’t believe the Federal Government should pay for abortions.

The liberal media loves to quote the “Southern Poverty Law Center” who will label anyone the Democratic Party dislikes a “Racist” or a “Hate Group”.

I’ve learned to ignore the liberal media. I’ve called for boycotts of their advertisers to try making them tell the truth. And I’ve exposed 1000’s of lies they have told to Americans on the evening news. But none of it helps because they still lie, and some Americans still believe them.

Under the Obama Administration the SPLC was even advising the Justice Department. I cannot stress to you enough that the people at the SPLC are nothing more than a political group that is used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with the politics of the left.

I want to share with all of you a 3 part series of articles highlighting “Hate Groups in America which are supported and funded by the Left. Written by a much better writer than myself, John Perazzo over at FRONTPAGE MAG.

I hope you’ll take the time to read them all. There is a lot of information contained in these 3 articles. Information showing how the left supports and uses “Hate” as a tool against political rivals and anyone else who stands in their way. I’m sure glad that FRONTPAGE MAG  did this series to illustrate political use of hatred in America.

vd3a0jcp

 


The Hate Group That Tracks Down ‘Hate Groups’

The despicable Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was founded in 1971 by two Alabama attorneys, Morris Dees and Joseph Levin Jr. The latter served as the Center’s legal director from 1971-76, but it was Dees, who views the U.S. as an irredeemably racist nation, who would emerge as the long-term “face” of the organization.

Identifying itself as a “nonprofit civil rights organization” committed to “fighting hate and bigotry” while “seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society,” SPLC describes the United States as a country “seething with racial violence” and “intolerance against those who are different.” “Hate in America is a dreadful, daily constant,” says the Center, and violent crimes against members of minority groups like blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, and Arabs/Muslims “are not ‘isolated incidents,’” but rather, commonplace. To combat this ugly state of affairs, SPLC dedicates itself to “tracking and exposing the activities of “hate groups and other domestic extremists” throughout the United States. Specifically, the Center’s “Hate & Extremism” initiative publishes its findings in SPLC’s Hatewatch Blog and in its quarterly journal, the Intelligence Report.

SPLC first gained widespread national recognition in 1987, when it won a $7 million verdict in a high-profile civil lawsuit against the United Klans of America (UKA). By the time that lawsuit was filed, UKA was already a destitute, impotent, disintegrating entity that virtually all white Americans emphatically rejected; the SPLC lawsuit merely drove the final nail into the UKA coffin. SPLC boasts that it has likewise won “crushing jury verdicts” that effectively shut down groups like the White Aryan Resistance, the White Patriot Party militia, and the Aryan Nations.

This has been SPLC’s modus operandi since its inception: to initiate lawsuits against prominent hate groups for crimes that their individual members commit. In these suits, declares Morris Dees proudly: “We absolutely take no prisoners. When we get into a legal fight we go all the way.” The leftist writer Ken Silverstein, who in 2000 wrote a penetrating exposé of SPLC for Harper’s magazine, has noted that the targets of these lawsuits tend to be “mediagenic villains” who are “eager to show off their swastikas for the news cameras.” As Dees and SPLC well understand, such figures stand the best chance of triggering an emotional public response that translates, in turn, into financial contributions from donors eager to combat the perceived threat.

SPLC claims that there are currently 892 active “hate groups” in the U.S. 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” organizations. While also identifying a tiny smattering of black separatist entities as hate groups, SPLC takes pains to point out that black organizations must 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.”

SPLC contends that from 2000 to 2012, the number of hate groups in the U.S. 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” (Barack Obama). And America’s racists, by SPLC’s calculus, are almost all conservatives—as evidenced by the caption featured in the “Hatewatch” section of SPLC’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.”[1] 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 said: “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 [i.e., fundraising] letter [by stating that] ‘the danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.’” To put Dees’s claim in perspective, the Ku Klux 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, noted 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 in 2009 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 Kampf tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other.” “Ever since 1971,” added Cockburn, “U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with [Dees’s] fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America.”

Regardless of how dramatically SPLC overstates their numbers, white racists like neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and skinheads indisputably deserve to be categorized as “hate groups.” But the Center irresponsibly extends that designation also to numerous conservative and libertarian organizations that harbor no ill will against any demographic group, but merely hold political positions contrary to those of SPLC. As syndicated columnist Don Feder writes: “What makes [SPLC] 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.”

For instance, one noteworthy organization that SPLC has placed in its cross hairs is 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,” wrote Berlet incredulously, “that civil rights activists actually help perpetuate racial tensions and division in the United States.” Such sentiments as D’Souza’s are—notwithstanding the repeatedly divisive rhetoric and actions of racial arsonists like Al SharptonJesse JacksonLouis Farrakhan, and the late Julian Bond—anathema to an organization whose income stream is largely dependent upon an ability to perpetuate public angst over black suffering.

Berlet’s 2003 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 unfounded 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.”

Berlet’s gross misrepresentations of Horowitz’s work can only be understood in the context of Berlet’s own political and ideological track record. For instance, in the mid-1970s he volunteered to work on Counterspy magazine, an anti-CIA periodical founded by Philip Agee, the onetime intelligence officer who subsequently turned against the agency and spent years exposing the identity of undercover American spies who were stationed overseas. During the Cold War, Berlet was a supporter of Communist police states—most notably Albania, one of the most backward and repressive. Indeed, in 1983 Berlet was a founding member of the Chicago Area Friends of Albania, a Communist front group that supported the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania and the repressive political rule of the Marxist-Leninist dictator Enver Hoxha. And for the past 35 years Berlet has been a paralegal member of the National Lawyers Guild, which throughout the Cold War embraced pro-Soviet agendas while systematically opposing the foreign policies of the United States, and which continues to depict America as the principal wellspring of evil on earth.

In 2010 SPLC denounced the Tea Party, which advocated reductions in government spending and taxes, as a movement that was “shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories, and racism.”

Another of SPLC’s bedrock beliefs is its conviction that the U.S., in addition to being inherently racist, is also a homophobic nation that countenances all manner of injustice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered 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 tars 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 did the Center once list the conservative Family Research Council 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.” 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.”

SPLC’s list of hate groups and extremist groups also includes the Traditional Values Coalition, 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 on that basis.

SPLC sees “Islamophobia”—hatred and fear based on religious faith—as yet another major defect in the American character. 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 considers that according to FBI data, the number of “reported anti-Muslim hate crimes” nationwide increased from 107 in 2009 to 160 in 2010—technically a 50% increase, but hardly what could be characterized as an epidemic in a nation of more than 300 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 steeply declining.

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 World Net Daily publisher Joseph Farah, American Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney, blogger/activist Pamela Geller, and Accuracy in Media director Cliff Kincaid. In an effort to marginalize these individuals, SPLC lumps them together with Klansmen and neo-Nazis.

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, founder of the blog Refugee Resettlement Watch
  • Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism
  • Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT for America
  • Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy
  • Pamela Geller, co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (and Stop Islamization of America)
  • John Guandolo, founder of the consultation and training group, Understanding the Threat
  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born activist and author
  • David Horowitz, founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
  • Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst with the Clarion Project
  • Robert Muise, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center
  • Maajid Nawaz, a self-identified “proud Muslim” who opposes the radicalization of his faith
  • Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum
  • Walid Shoebat, a Palestinian American activist who converted from Islam to Christianity
  • Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch
  • David Yerushalmi, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center

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 it views the arguments or conclusions of these authors as flawed—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 arguable—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 Islamic schools in the West should be shut down, and 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’s 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 “our greatest enemy today is Islam,” and 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 a 2016 interview with the Tablet, the aforementioned Maajid Nawaz 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.”

It is worth noting the serious ramifications that had previously occurred when SPLC in 2012 listed the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) as a hate group. On the morning of August 15, 2012, a domestic terrorist named Floyd Corkins walked into FRC’s Washington, DC headquarters carrying a pistol and 100 rounds of ammunition with the intention of “kill[ing] people in the building.” His plan was thwarted by an operations manager who physically tackled him to the ground. When an FBI agent subsequently asked Corkins why he had chosen to target FRC, the would-be killer 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.”

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 wages”; “denied basic protections in the workplace”; “subjected to racial profiling and harassment by law enforcement”; and “targeted for violent hate crimes.” 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 that sits at the heart of that debate.

SPLC derides the American Legion’s opposition to illegal immigration and amnesty as “Legionnaires’ Disease”—even though the Legion fully supports opportunities for legal immigration. The Center similarly denounces the Minuteman Project—a nonviolent, volunteer effort initiated by private American citizens seeking to restrict the flow of illegal border-crossers—as an organization whose ideals and tactics are rooted in racism. The Arizona-based American Border Patrol, which monitors traffic across Southeastern Arizona’s border with Mexico—the heart of a major smuggling corridor—is classified by SPLC as a “hate group” dominated by “anti-immigrant ideologues.” And Americans for Immigration Control, which contends that illegal immigration is a “lawless” phenomenon that “puts the future of our country in jeopardy,” is branded an “anti-immigrant” hate group.

As is typical of organizations on the left, SPLC is ever-prepared to label its political and ideological adversaries as purveyors of “hate” and “intolerance.” But in reality, that is nothing more than psychological projection. Hatred and intolerance for the opinions and values of others are prime components in the very lifeblood of SPLC.

Yet another major component of that lifeblood is money. Although SPLC possesses reserve assets valued at more than a quarter of a billion dollars, it spends, in comparison to other nonprofit organizations, an unusually small percentage of its revenues on actual program services—and a great deal on salaries, overhead, and fundraising. As The Weekly Standard reports: “CharityWatch, 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 … to tide it over during donation-lean years.”

More than any other organization in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center has turned hate-based identity politics and grievance mongering into a highly profitable scam.

NOTE:

[1] Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs (Olathe, KS: Editorial Research Service, 1998), p. 55.

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG

 


Jew-Hatred Dressed up As ‘Justice’

A look at the hate group Students for Justice in Palestine.

Editor’s note: The following is the second in a series of articles highlighting the network of major hate groups in America that are supported and funded by the Left. For more information on Students for Justice in Palestine, visit the organization’s profile at DiscoverTheNetworks.org. For the previous profile on the Southern Poverty Law Center, click here

Founded at UC Berkeley in October of 2000, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is a highly influential campus organization with chapters based at approximately 200 American colleges and universities, where it organizes and sponsors anti-Israel events and campaigns more actively than any other student group in the nation. SJP’s declared mission is to “promote the cause of justice,” “speak out against oppression,” and “educate members of our community specifically about the plight of the Palestinian people” at the hands of alleged Israeli abuses. The benign tenor of this mission statement stands in stark contrast, however, to the countless reams of SJP propaganda that echo much of what is said by the Hamas terrorists who seek to permanently end Israel’s existence as a sovereign Jewish state. The reason for this is simple: SJP was in essence formed to help spread anti-Semitism through the halls of American academia; to wage a campus war against Israel by providing rhetorical support for the Jew-hatred undergirding the Second Palestinian Intifada which Hamas and allied terrorists had recently launched in late September 2000.

SJP’s principal founder, Hatem Bazian, has quoted approvingly from a famous Islamic hadith which calls for the violent slaughter of Jews and which appears in Hamas’s founding charter. He once spoke at a fundraising dinner for a Hamas front group that the U.S. government later shut down due to the organization’s ties to Islamic terrorism. On another occasion, Bazian portrayed Hamas as “a classical anti-colonial nationalist and religious guerrilla movement.” And he described Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Gaza elections as “a monumental event.”

Notwithstanding Hamas’s calls for the mass murder and genocide of Jews, the website of SJP’s UC Berkeley chapter describes Hamas not as a terrorist group but rather as “a vast social organization” that “provides schools, medical care, and day care for a number of Palestinians who otherwise live difficult lives”; a group with a “clean record as far as domestic corruption in governance [is] concerned”; and an entity whose “officials have often stated that they are ready for a long-term truce with Israel during which time final status negotiations can occur.”

It is commonplace for SJP’s rank-and-file members to support, or to at least decline to condemn, Islamic terrorism. As a Columbia University SJP member said in 2002: “We support the right of Palestinians to resist occupation and do not dictate the methods of that struggle. There’s a difference between violence of the oppressed and violence of the oppressors.”

That same year, SJP’s national convention was sponsored by the Islamic Association for Palestine, a now-defunct, Illinois-based front group for Hamas. The conference featured keynote speaker Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor who served as the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization whose objectives include the destruction of Israel, the elimination of all Western influences in the Middle East by means of armed warfare, and the convergence of all Muslim countries into a single Islamic caliphate.

Routinely denouncing Israeli self-defense measures as assaults on the civil and human rights of Palestinians, SJP generally neglects to judge those measures in the context of Palestinian terror attacks. For example, in a September 2014 “vigil” at Binghamton University in honor of Palestinians who had been killed in Operation Protective Edge—Israel’s then-recent military incursion into Gaza—SJP member Victoria Brown told the campus newspaper that her group’s goal was to “commemorate” and “humanize” the Palestinian “children, women and innocent civilians who were massacred” by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Yet she made no mention of the fact that the IDF’s actions were in response to a massive barrage of deadly rockets that Hamas terrorists had been firing indiscriminately into southern Israel.

On another occasion, New York City’s SJP created posters lauding the Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled—who in September 1970 had participated in the multiple hijacking of five jetliners—for “committing her life to be a freedom fighter in the struggle for Palestinian liberation.”

In a similar spirit, a number of SJP chapters hold annual commemorations in honor of the late Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group which Islam expert Robert Spencer has described as “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.” Al-Banna was an inveterate Jew-hater who firmly opposed the creation of Israel in 1948 and strove to forge a formal alliance with Hitler and Mussolini when World War II broke out. Al-Banna was also the mentor of Haj Amin Al-Husseni, the pro-Hitler father of Palestinian nationalism.

In 2012, Cornell University’s SJP issued a publication featuring a logo of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization that embraces “a revolutionary understanding of Marxism” and views the “liberation” of Palestine as a key component of Communism’s worldwide ascendancy.

Promoting the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement

SJP is America’s leading campus promoter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that aims to use various forms of public protest and economic pressure to advance the Hamas agenda of Israel’s destruction. While Hamas pursues this goal in its low-intensity war against Israel by means of terrorism and bloodshed, BDS supplements those efforts by pushing for three forms of nonviolent punitive action designed to cripple Israel’s economy and bring the nation to its knees politically: (1) coordinated boycotts that aim to intimidate and coerce corporations, universities, and individuals into breaking off their business relationships with Israel; (2) decisions by banks, pension funds, corporations, and other entities to withdraw any financial investments which they may have made in the state of Israel or in companies that operate there; and (3) targeted sanctions—such as trade penalties or bans, arms embargoes, and the severing of diplomatic ties—imposed by governments around the world against Israel specifically.

Using these tactics, SJP and its allies in the BDS movement seek to lay the psychological and rhetorical groundwork for: (a) creating the false impression that Israel has illegally and immorally usurped large swaths of land that rightfully belong to the Palestinians; (b) depicting Israel as a habitual human-rights violator guilty of subjecting its Palestinian neighbors to brutal campaigns of “apartheid,” “ethniccleansing,” “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” and “genocide”; (c) likening Israeli public officials and soldiers to “Nazis,” and Gaza to a “concentration camp” or “ghetto”; (d) delegitimizing, in the minds of people worldwide, Israel’s very right to exist as a sovereign state; and (e) promoting the idea that this illegitimate Jewish state should be replaced by an Arab-majority alternative. As NGO Monitor puts it, the effectiveness of BDS campaigns is rooted chiefly “in their ability to penetrate the public and political discourse and blur the lines between legitimate criticism of Israel and the complete delegitimization of Israel in the international arena.”

SJP’s Activities & Tactics

Condemning “the racism and discrimination underlying the policies and laws of the state of Israel,” SJP’s various chapters actively organize protests, memorials, educational forums, lectures, panel discussions, teach-ins, seminars, workshops, film screenings, and other events designed to “give a voice to the Palestinian narrative as well as highlight the plight of the Palestinian people under Israeli aggression.” Particularly notable is the fact that since 2005, a number of SJP chapters have designated one week of every academic year as “Palestine Awareness Week” or, alternatively, “Israel Apartheid Week.” These weeks feature an array of SJP-sponsored events where Israel is repeatedly denounced in incendiary language as an apartheid state that is guilty of human-rights abuses, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide.

SJP’s Chief Supporter

The most significant and influential supporter of SJP is American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), which was established in 2005 by none other than SJP co-founder Hatem Bazian. Writes Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD): “AMP provides speakers, training, printed materials, a so-called ‘Apartheid Wall,’ and [financial] grants to SJP activists. AMP even has a campus coordinator on staff whose job is to work directly with SJP and other pro-BDS campus groups across the country. According to an email it sent to subscribers, AMP spent $100,000 on campus activities in 2014 alone.” Further, AMP has co-sponsored events with various SJP chapters.

At least eight of AMP’s current board members, key officials, and close allies were previously members of now-defunct Islamic extremist groups that funded terrorist activities. Those groups included the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood (which was established by the Brotherhood to advance Hamas’s agendas in the U.S.); the Islamic Association for Palestine (which served as the chief U.S. propaganda and recruitment arm of Hamas); the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (which from 1995-2001 contributed approximately $12.4 million in money, goods, and services to Hamas); and KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development (a Hamas fundraising entity).

The Final Analysis

So you see, SJP’s name is highly misleading—not only to the American public, but also to the many useful idiots who constitute the organization’s devoted members and foot soldiers. As far as SJP is concerned, “Justice in Palestine” can best be achieved by advancing the agendas of this generation’s foremost Jew-haters.

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG


The New Black Panther Party: Black Racism Personified

Any “national conversation” on race must acknowledge the most taboo racism of all.

Editor’s note: Below is the third installment in a series of articles highlighting the network of major hate groups in America that are supported and funded by the Left. Click the following for the previous profile on the Souther Poverty Law Center and Students for Justice in Palestine

Founded in 1990, the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) is a militant black separatist organization that promotes racial violence against Jews and whites. NBPP preaches a “Ten-Point Platform” similar to its that of its namesake – the murderous Black panther Party of the 1960s and ’70s – demanding such things as: “full employment for our [black] people,” in light of the fact that “the white man has … used every dirty trick in the book to stand in the way of our freedom and independence”; “the overdue debt of reparations” from “this wicked racist government [that] has robbed us”; exemption for blacks “from all taxation”; and “education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society.”

Khalid Abdul Muhammad, a onetime spokesman for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, joined NBPP in the mid-1990s and by1998 had become NBPP’s chairman. He earned a reputation as an inveterate racist and anti-Semite by characterizing Jews as “slumlords in the black community” who were busy “sucking our [blacks’] blood on a daily and consistent basis”; asserting that Jews had provoked Adolf Hitler when they “went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped”; telling a San Francisco State University audience that “the white man is the Devil”; declaring that blacks, in retribution against South African whites of the apartheid era, should “kill them all”; and praising a black man who had shot some twenty white and Asian commuters in a racially motivated shooting spree aboard a New York commuter train as a hero who possessed the courage to “just kill every goddamn cracker that he saw.” Muhammad also advised blacks that “[t]here are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes.”

When Muhammad died in February 2001, he was succeeded as NBPP chairman by his longtime protégé, Malik Zulu Shabazz. At a rally the previous summer, Shabazz had openly called for a race war in which black young people would unite against the “common enemy” so that “we will see caskets and funerals in the[ir] community.”

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, NBPP promoted numerous conspiracy theories alleging Jewish complicity. NBPP officer Amir Muhammad, for instance, suggested that Jews had been forewarned about the terror plot and thus had stayed away from the attack sites on 9/11: “There are reports that as many as 3,000 to 5,000 so-called Jews did not go to work [at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon] that day, and we need to take a serious look at that.”

In yet another false claim, NBPP has consistently maintained that Jews were “significantly and substantially” involved in the transatlantic slave trade.

In March 2012, NBPP weighed in on the explosive case of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager who had recently been shot and killed under disputed circumstances by a “white Hispanic” named George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. Declaring that “White America” would no longer be permitted to “kill black children and get away with it,” the Panthers initially offered a $10,000 bounty for the “capture” of Zimmerman, “DEAD or ALIVE.” Soon thereafter, the Panthers upped the ante to $1 million, a sum which they expected to collect in donations “from the black community.”

On April 6, 2012, three NBPP leaders conducted a group phone conference to discuss a scheduled rally that was to be held in memory of Trayvon Martin. During the course of that conversation, they called on black people to get “suited, booted, and armed up for this race war” against “these honkies, these crackers, these pigs, these people, these motherfu**er[s],” and they demanded “the destruction” of “that blonde-haired, blue-eyed, sometimes brown-eyed, Caucasian walkin’ around with a mindset, a demonistic mindset, and a nature to do evil and brutality.”

In May 2012, NBPP’s national field marshal, King Samir Shabazz, made a number of racially charged statements, including the following:

  • “I love white-on white-crime, because that is the best crime, and we‘re going say ‘black power’ to that.”
  • “I love black people, and I hate the g*ddamn white man, woman, and child, grandma, aunt, uncle, Pappa Billy Bob, and whoever else…. I hate the very look of white people. I hate the sound of white people. G*ddamnit, I hate the smell of white people.”
  • “You should be thankful we’re not running around here hanging crackers by nooses and all that kind of stuff, yet, yet, yet.”

In a June 2012 segment on NBPP Radio, an NBPP member known as “General TACO” (acronym for “Taking All Capitalists Out”) warned that his organization would “hunt” white people’s “pink asses down” and kill them because of their “history” of pushing “crack, AIDS and unemployment” on black people in order to “exterminate” them. “Once [white people] die,” he added, “we should dig ’em up, and kill ’em again, bury ’em, dig ’em up, and kill ’em again, and again, and again!”

In October 2013, Malik Zulu Shabazz announced that he was stepping down from his position as NBPP’s national chairman in order to focus on his career as an attorney with Black Lawyers for Justice, though he pledged to continue serving NBPP as a “spiritual guide.” His replacement as NBPP’s national chairman was Hashim Nzinga, who had previously served as the organization’s chief of staff.

It was a seamless transition from Shabazz to Nzinga, as the latter took the reins of NBPP with a well-established reputation as a race-baiting hate monger. Indeed, Nzinga proclaims that because America has “declared war on us,” NBPP members are “willing to die or kill to save our babies and to save a black nation that is dying before our eyes.” “So if we say we are at war,” adds Nzinga, “we should be applauded like George Washington. We should be applauded like Thomas Jefferson. We should be applauded like the Founding Fathers of the country.”

Nzinga and his NBPP comrades view themselves as the aspiring founders of a new nation rooted in identity politics and violent tribal hatred – the very antithesis of what Washington and Jefferson envisioned. If the Panthers have their way, American streets will run red with blood, and the values of tolerance and civility that grew out of the Enlightenment will be replaced by a vengeful barbarism no better than that of ISIS and its murderous butchers.

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG


America is at War

We are at War with the liberal media and their lies

We are at War with Hate Groups like those listed above

We are at War with Career Politicians

We are at War with Political Correctness

We are at War with Silence……..

 Because Silence is Consent!!!

Educate yourself and your family and anyone else who will listen!!!

Be silent for no one!!!

 

More Racist Politics from the Obama Gang

From The New American newsletter
Wednesday, 03 February 2016

New Obama Regulations Will Make It Harder to Hire and Promote White Men

Written by 

The Obama administration is obsessed with race and sex. Many know about the administration’s scheme to collect information on the racial composition of American communities in an effort to force neighborhoods to “diversify.” Now the government is applying the same philosophy to businesses in order to “equalize” wages. It’s an effort, critics point out, that will make it harder for white men to find jobs. Writes the New York Post’s Betsy McCaughey:

Claiming women aren’t getting paid enough, President Obama wants to make it easier to accuse employers of gender discrimination and hit them with class-action lawsuits. A new regulation proposed on Friday will require all employers with 100 or more workers to report how much their workforce is paid, broken down by race and [sex].

The rule, slated to go into effect in September 2017, will cause headaches for employers and anyone — man or woman — who works hard and expects to get ahead based on merit. The winners are federal bean counters, class-action lawyers and the Democratic Party, which is playing up the [inter-sex] “wage gap” as usual during this election year.

McCaughey points out that this regulation will hit white men the hardest, and this is echoed by American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson:

Your employer will have to lump workers into 12 salary bands. If you’re a white male up for a raise, but the band above yours already includes too many while males, tough luck. Your boss will be pressured to give the raise to a woman or minority to avoid triggering EEOC scrutiny.

This data collection is a godsend for EEOC regulators looking for targets, and it hands class-action lawyers the statistics they need on a silver platter.

Even worse: the presumption is that the employer discriminates, unless proven otherwise.

The “guilty until proven innocent” standard Lifson refers to seems to reflect “disparate impact” theory; this principle states that if a group cannot measure up to a standard as well as another group, that standard is by definition considered unjustly discriminatory. Applied by the government for decades, it has been used to compel police departments and other entities to scrap qualification exams because women and minorities underperformed on them. As an example, the Obama administration sued the Pennsylvania State Police in 2014 for treating women equally — because doing so yielded unequal outcomes.

As for different salary outcomes in business, McCaughey explains the consequences of the new regulations:

Employers will have to change their policies to avoid these differences — for example, not preferring the job applicant who has a college degree over the applicant who doesn’t, unless the job can be shown to require college skills. The burden is on employers. It’s assumed they’re discriminating, in other words, and they have to prove they’re not.

Jenny Yang, chairwoman of Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, defends the massive fishing expedition, saying, “pay discrimination goes undetected because of a lack of accurate information about what people are paid.”

Of course, it’s impossible not to discover pay “discrimination.” All that term refers to is the process of choosing one or some from between/among two or many. And since meritocracy dictates we discriminate between the intelligent and the stupid, the educated and the ignorant, and the qualified and the unqualified — and since groups have different proclivities and interests — it follows that Yang cannot fail in her mission. But she clearly isn’t interested in the real question: Are inter-group pay gaps actually caused by prejudice?

Demagogues love the slogan “Women make only 79 cents on a man’s dollar!” Yet the same data-collection entities reporting that fact also tell us why — and it has nothing to do with unfair discrimination. I explained this in the 2014 New American piece “Equal Pay for Equal Work: Means Paying Men More,” but female commentators such as Carrie Lukas have made the same points. Here are some of the main factors influencing the inter-sex pay gap:

Men tend to choose more lucrative fields than women do (e.g., the hard sciences as opposed to the soft ones).

Related to the above, women avoid the most dangerous and dirtiest jobs — such as iron-working and commercial fishing — which often bring great compensation.

Full-time men work more hours on average than “full-time” women.

When climbing the corporate ladder, women are six times more likely than men to change positions and career tracks; consequently, men generally have more seniority and experience.

Women are more likely to decline promotions and “tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do,” as Lukas wrote in 2007.

The reality is that women don’t get less money for equal work — they get less money for lesser work. Moreover, it seems that some pay gaps are more equal than others. There was much talk late last year about Hollywood actresses making less than actors (poor Jennifer Lawrence had to settle for $52 million, $28 million less than Robert Downey Jr.). Yet no one troubles over the top 10 female fashion models earning more than 10 times as much as their male counterparts do. And even among rank-and-file models, the women make 148 percent more.

But isn’t this “sex discrimination”? Aren’t the models doing equal work? This question gets at a generally ignored but central issue: What constitutes equal work, anyway?

Models don’t get paid because they’re capable of posing, wearing clothing, standing under hot lights or parading down runways; I could do that. They earn wages because their “work” helps satisfy a market — and the female models command more because their “work” satisfies a bigger market than the men’s work does. This is the same reason NBA players make more than WNBA players and heavyweight boxers generally out-earn lightweights. The “work” isn’t just shooting baskets and throwing punches; it involves succeeding in, respectively, the NBA and heavyweight ranks.

This brings us to another significant point: Is it really true that sex and racial discrimination is always unjust? Consider that a quality integral to doing the women models’ work is being female. If the male models were women, they might be able to do the same “work” and satisfy the market equally. There are many other such examples. As I wrote in 2014:

My local hardware store provides knowledgeable workers, all men, who render valuable advice on products and how to perform various home repairs. If it was determined that people found a female in that role less credible and were then not quite as likely to buy from the establishment, would even a highly competent woman be able to do “equal work” in that capacity?

What about the little West Indian restaurant, with all-black workers, I loved when I spent a few weeks in Tampa? If hiring a white person made the eatery seem less authentic and negatively affected its appeal, would that individual be able to do “equal work”? The same, of course, could be asked about a black person working in a German restaurant. In these cases race would be integral to the “work.”

The reality is that the government has no idea what constitutes “equal work,” yet it feels qualified to mandate equal pay. But while one might not expect bureaucrats to have pondered deeper issues such as the above, simple facts can be easily apprehended. And here’s one: Women in the Obama White House make only 84 cents on every male staffer’s dollar. Is this driven by bad intentions? If not, a desire to ascribe such motives to a wider society exhibiting the same phenomenon just might be driven by bad intentions itself.

Source : The New American

NY Daily Propaganda takes on GOD, and half of America

A “gun scourge”??? No DUMMIES!!! It’s the radical Islamic elements the left continues fighting to import into America that is at fault here!!! Had an armed American been present, he/she could have killed the deranged gunmen who were seeking their virgins! It’s YOUR side of the isle that insists “Islam is Peaceful” when all data shows otherwise. It’s YOUR side of the isle that insists on OPEN BORDERS allowing enemies of America to infiltrate our country!!! And you want to talk about GOD??? If Obama was up there citing the Koran your paper would be cheering him on!!! Let’s see if your rag can survive without Christian customers once Obama stops funding you!!!CVRBkkRWUAAcuHJ The Demons of the left think they sit in the cat-bird seat, so they are getting a little too cocky!!! That is very apparent by reading the cover of the New York Daily News. You see…………. They MUST get America to become people of no faith, or they can NEVER accomplish their Marxist goals.  I recommend that you do the following:

Get yourself a list of all of the advertisers that buy space in that paper, then every Christian in the country needs to BOYCOTT every advertiser that buys space there!!! Their advertisers will bail out quick when it affects their pocket books!!! Without advertisers they go bankrupt. If you do this, be sure to PUBLISH YOUR LIST!!!

The Media Research Center has been a steadfast source of good, honest reporting for the last several years, when that was hard to find.

Brent Bozell lit them up today, calling for an apology and for heads to roll!!! He demanded :

1) Apologize not just to the GOP presidential candidates and Speaker of the House but every person of faith it offended;

2) Fire the person who is responsible for approving the front page story immediately; and

3) Launch an investigation into the personnel and policies that allowed this to happen so that it never happens again.

 

2015-11-17-fbn-varney-bozell

Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell issued a statement today blasting the New York Daily News for their cover mocking people of faith for praying in the wake of the tragedy in San Bernardino, California.

MRC President Brent Bozell reacts:

Read Original Story from MRC News Busters Here

After you read that, listen to this prophetic piece by Paul Harvey in the 1960’s.

“If I were the Devil” Paul Harvey
https://youtu.be/ZaGVCO6CByQ

America and God stand with you Israel

Every American President has stood with Israel, they are America’s closest and dearest ally in the world today. With that being said, Obama the anti-Semite muslim is now in office. He helps Israel’s enemies while hurting our ally Israel. Think about that. He helps our enemies while hurting our allies!!! I for one have seen enough. I believe the time for talk is over. It is time for America and Americans to take action against this man before his destruction of America is complete. Before he came to office, I was not a political person at all!!! But I love my country, and I want to defend the Constitution which defends our country. This President only seeks to side step the Constitution. He is a Constitutional Scholar folks. He studied the Constitution so he could find ways around the protection it provides for America. He wishes only to destroy America, nothing more, and nothing less. If you love this country I strongly suggest that you act TODAY to defend it. You need to go to ACLJ.org  RIGHT NOW!!! And sign the petitions they have going, ALL of them!!! Then you should write to your representatives in Congress DAILY until they do something about this!!! You can locate them here : http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Please go to bat for our friends in Israel. Please go to bat for America. Please stop doing nothing, and start doing something every day to protect our country from this attack.

GOD and ISRAEL

Barack runs from his vow to “Stand with the Muslims”

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,” wrote Barack Obama in his 2006 Audacity of Hope. At the time, Obama was a senator from Illinois and was apparently unconcerned that he may one day be forced to act on the somewhat bizarre statement. But presidential elections tend to change things; and before the United Nations on Tuesday, Obama stated rather pointedly that he is a Christian, almost as if he was concerned that some in the American audience especially might be unsure.

via Barack runs from his vow to “Stand with the Muslims”.