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!!!

 

Dear Trump Fan, So You Want Someone To ‘Tell It Like It Is’? OK, Here You Go.

Matt Walsh is a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.

 

Dear Donald Trump Fan,

I’m going to tell you the truth, friend.

You say you want the truth. You say you want someone who speaks boldly and brashly and bluntly and “tells it like it is” and so on. According to exit polls in South Carolina, voters who want a president who “tells it like it is” are an essential demographic for Trump, just as they’re an essential demographic for Judge Judy and Dr. Phil. You say you want abrupt and matter-of-fact honesty, and you want it so much, you’ll make a man president for it regardless of whether he defies every principle and value you claim to hold.

Personally, I think you’re lying, and I’m going to test my theory. In fact, I believe I’ve already proven my theory because you’re now offended that I called you a liar. But Trump has called half of the Earth’s population a liar at some point over the past seven months, and you loved every second of it. You said you loved it not out of cruelty or spite, but out of admiration for a man who’s willing to call people liars — even if he’s lying when he does it.

Yet here I am employing the same tactic — accurately, I might add — and you recoil indignantly. Over the course of this campaign season I’ve said many harsh words about you and your leader, all of which I stand by, but you’ve never respected my harsh words, or the harsh words of any Trump critic. Indeed, you insist that our tough criticism of you only vindicates your support of Trump, while Trump’s vulgar and dishonest criticism of everyone else also vindicates your support of Trump. You’re tired of people being critical, but you love Trump because he’s critical. You say you like Trump for his style, but you hate his style when it’s directed at him or you.

You say you like Trump for his style, but you hate his style when it’s directed at him or you.

You say you want someone who’s politically incorrect. You’re so desperate for political incorrectness — a supremely ridiculous reason to vote a guy into the Oval Office, but never mind — that your esteem for him only grows when he belittles the disabled, mocks American prisoners of war, calls women dogs, calls his opponents p*ssies, calls for the assassination of women and children, says he’d like to have sex with his daughter, brags about his adultery, etc.

You’re excited by the most vile statements and most cretinous behavior imaginable — not remotely deterred by any of it, no matter how many times he gloats over infidelity, curses his opponents, and publicly ogles his own children — because, you say, it’s politically incorrect. That is how unfathomably desperate you are for someone to come along and just say what’s on their mind, you claim. You’re so fed up with political correctness that you celebrate political incorrectness without distinguishing between the healthy sort and the “LOL I slept with married women and I’m not sorry” sort. It doesn’t matter if you don’t personally agree, you say, you just respect the hell out of someone who’s willing to shoot straight, even when ”shooting straight” means comparing Ben Carson to a child molester, calling the entire electorate of Iowa stupid, and referring to women as “pieces of ass.”

Trump won South Carolina on the support of Evangelical Christians who were so impressed with his alleged straight talk that they overlooked the fact that he’s a crass, cruel, unrepentant philanderer who says he does not need God’s forgiveness, and who praises Planned Parenthood as “wonderful” and his radically pro-abortion sister as a “phenomenal” candidate for the Supreme Court. That’s how much you pretend to admire bluntness in a man. So much that it overrides literally everything else.

Screenshot

By your logic, then, you should be filled with an immense and irresistible affection for me when I call Donald Trump a crooked, underhanded con artist and you a reckless, ignorant dupe. You should fall madly in love with me when I accuse Donald Trump of being a spoiled, overgrown brat and you of being a cultish groupie enamored with fame. You should well up with pride and salute me as I mentioned that Donald Trump is a stuffed and soiled diaper sagging in the pants of American politics and you’re the poor, pitiful sap trying to elect it president. You don’t have to agree, but man, isn’t it refreshing that I’m willing to tell you what’s on my mind? Shouldn’t you leave a thousand comments under this article praising me for being politically incorrect, willing to attack not only Donald Trump but his blue collar supporters? In fact, if you’re sincere in your alleged regard for the bold and audacious approach, I expect you’ll have launched a nationwide write-in campaign for me by tomorrow morning.

But that’s not how this works, is it? You’ve already melted into a boiling puddle of rage and self-pity, haven’t you? You’re incensed and offended that I could be so “judgmental” and “dismissive” and “critical,” and 100 other qualities you find so orgasmically satisfying when they’re displayed by The Great Trump. You say you want some straight-shooting, honest, politically incorrect tough talk, but that’s simply a lie. If it were true, my inbox would not be filled to capacity with cartoonishly shocked and outraged Trump fans every time I utter a word of criticism in his direction. It shouldn’t matter that my criticisms are sharp and severe; you ought to revere me all the more for it. I thought you were tired of people walking on egg shells?

It turns out you don’t want Donald Trump to walk on egg shells, but you have fortified your own perimeter with a thick layer of egg shells and you expect anyone who comes near it to tip toe with extreme caution. It turns out you want to be coddled and cuddled and pandered to and excused. You’re in favor of whatever Trump says because Trump said it, but when it comes to how people talk about you and him, you expect to be treated like a soft and delicate flower.

 

You flock eagerly to a flamboyant, authoritarian billionaire fascist, and you feel you ought to be completely insulated from criticism while you do so. Everyone else ought to be subject to relentless and profane invective from an elderly Manhattan real estate heir, but you and he should be above reproach.

Tell it like it is? I’ll tell you like it is: In my life I’ve never encountered a group of people more averse to being told how it is. Of course, you believe you’re entitled to this attitude because you’re “angry.” Your “anger” indulges you with the moral authority to take leave of your reason and your common sense. Your anger, you believe, places you beyond judgment, even as you attempt to drag this country into a future of (more) tyranny and cultism. You believe the rest of us ought to take your supposedly righteous rage into account while you refuse to take anything but your own infatuation with spectacle and celebrity into account. Whatever concerns we raise, including the ones I’m raising now, can be written off in an instant. “WE’RE TIRED OF POLITICS AS USUAL! WE’RE ANGRY!” And that’s supposed to be some kind of rhetorical hall pass, permitting you to do and say what you please unchallenged.

Well let me be the first and perhaps the only to say this out loud, although millions of people share this sentiment quietly: I don’t care about your anger. There’s some more truth for you, friend. There’s some more “tellin’ it like it is.” Two can play at this game, you know. And the only difference is that I’m right.

I couldn’t take your anger seriously even if I wanted to. After all, you say you’re angry that people are too afraid to speak their minds, but, as we’ve established, you don’t really want anyone but Donald Trump to speak his mind.

You say you’re angry about the corruption in Washington, but you support a slimy swindler and fraudster who boasts of his bribery schemes and makes no apologies for shamelessly exploiting political corruption for personal gain.

Michael Powlowsky of Hudson cheers at early poll numbers favoring republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at Trump's election night rally Tuesday.  (Matthew Cavanaugh/Getty Images)

You say you’re angry about illegal immigration, but you rally around a guy who supported amnesty as recently as 2013, employed illegal immigrants, and donated millions of dollars to open borders politicians like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton.

You say you’re angry about the establishment, but you worship a candidate who said only a few weeks ago that “you got to be a little establishment” in order to get things done, and who admits he “was the establishment” right until he ran for president.

You say you’re angry that Republicans won’t fight, but you hail as a warrior the same guy who says he’ll happily “work with the Democrats,” which probably explains why Sen. Harry Reid praised him and Jimmy Carter called him “malleable.” It is not uncommon for me to hear from Trump fans that they’re angry at “GOPe” Republicans for “cutting deals” and “compromising” in one breath, and in the very next that they want Trump because he’s really good at cutting deals and compromising.

Right down the list, you are blithely embracing every single thing you say you’re so angry about. Trump is the very embodiment of corruption, deception, cowardice, and elitism. He is precisely the sort of man you supposedly detest. Trump is exploiting America’s frustration with men like Trump. Trump is running against Trump. You are voting for Trump because you hate Trump. You are angry at politicians because they act like Trump and make deals like Trump and go to cocktail parties with men like Trump and look down on the little guy like Trump and possess the integrity of Trump, and so you’re solution is to elect Trump. Your anger at Trump leads you to Trump. Perhaps this explains why you’re so worried about politicians who are “controlled by donors,” but you aren’t at all concerned about a politicians who is the very donor you didn’t want controlling the political process. “I’m sick of these donors influencing the government! I have an idea: let’s make one president!” 

Trump is the very embodiment of corruption, deception, cowardice, and elitism.

It seems more like schizophrenia than anger. Aside from chronic mental illness, there are only two explanations for a person who avidly supports the continuation of a thing because he’s angry at that thing: either he’s fantastically stupid, or he’s not actually angry at all.

Friend, I should tell you the most popular theory among non-Trump supporters is that you fall into the former category. When we talk to each other in private, almost everyone agrees you’re stupid. Again, you should, by your own words, hold me in the highest esteem for telling you this uncomfortable fact. People think you’re stupid, just as they thought about Barack Obama supporters in 2008.

The parallels between the two groups are indeed profound, as exit polls attest. Once again, people are voting because “they want change,” unconcerned by the fact that the change is ambiguous, non-specific, and, in fact, not really ”change” at all. A lot of people, grasping for an explanation as to how voters might be suckered by the same shtick three times in a row, just chalk it up to stupidity.

By the way, you should doubly love what I’m doing here because it appears very close to apophasis, which is a rhetorical device where the speaker coyly makes an accusation or insult in the context of denying or distancing himself from the unkind remark. “Many people believe my neighbor Jim is a thieving jerk who borrowed my garden hose last July and didn’t return it, but I’m not going to talk about it.” That kind of thing.

It’s a strategy Trump employs all the time, and you always go along with it, like when he called Megyn Kelly a bimbo by saying “I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo because that would be politically incorrect.” Like clockwork, you insisted that he didn’t call Megyn Kelly a bimbo; he merely brought up the fact that he would call her a bimbo if it weren’t so rude to do so.

JANUARY 26: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waits to be introduced during a campaign event at the University of Iowa on January 26, 2016 in Iowa City, Iowa. Trump continues his quest to become the Republican presidential nominee. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Well, in similar fashion, I’m not calling you stupid, I’m just saying that other people call you stupid. You should therefore defend me against any accusation that I’ve called you stupid, just as you would Trump. But the difference is that I’m not being coy here. I really don’t think you’re stupid. I certainly don’t think I’m any smarter than you. I subscribe to the second theory: I don’t believe you’re really all that angry.

Your anger, to whatever extent it exists at all, is surface level. It’s a purely emotional experience, fed by a mob mentality. You’re angry in the way a rioter or looter is angry. Your temper might be flaring and your heart rate jumping and you might be filled with the uncontrollable urge to break a window, but underneath that anger is really something much closer to boredom and apathy. You don’t feel a real, intense, profound, deep and meaningful disgust at the corruption and malfeasance in Washington, because if you did there is simply no way you would support a man like Trump.

Unless, like I said, you’re stupid. But you aren’t stupid, and a non-stupid person, a serious person, who truly, deeply, intensely loathes the current state of affairs, who genuinely desires that his country be revived for the sake of his children, would not be turning to a blustery, boorish reality TV character with a catchphrase and a fake tan for answers.

I’m just telling it like it is here, friend. I’m telling you what’s on my mind. I’m being completely and painfully honest with you. I don’t believe your anger.  I think you want a spectacle, not a solution. A celebrity, not a statesman. A circus performer, not a leader. I think you want to be entertained. I think you’re not taking this seriously enough. I think you’re intellectually lazy so you’ve accepted authoritarianism as a stand-in for strength. I think you’re following the trend of the day. I think you’re wrapped up in media hype.

In other words, I think your anger, if it exists, is misplaced. You should be angry at yourself, because if this country falls finally and irrevocably into despotism, it’ll be your fault. You’ll have chosen it. You’ll have elected it and applauded it. That, my friend, is what makes me angry.

And that’s just how it is.

To request Matt for a speaking engagement, email Contact@TheMattWalshBlog.com. For all other comments and death wishes, email MattWalsh@TheMattWalshBlog.com

Source : The Blaze


America at War and Conservative Thinking Americans on Facebook   salutes Matt Walsh for this Trumpatoon Truth!!!

Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues

The media are no longer the watchdogs for the American public, but the lapdogs of a liberal agenda committed to the destruction of life. The Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues calls out journalists for their ongoing blackout of pro-life news and demands reporters live up to the standards of journalistic integrity by covering life issues.

The March for Life Media Censorship

The three broadcast networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – have promoted Planned Parenthood, downplayed scandalous abortion videos and given little attention to the march and other pro-life events.

Last year, 200,000 people filled Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life commemorating the 57 million babies snuffed out since 1973’s Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Only CBS mentioned the march, allotting just 15 seconds. That was only one second for every 13,000 people who put work, school and other obligations aside to travel from as far away as the West Coast. That was only one second for every 3.8 million babies aborted in the last four decades.

In 2014, the networks devoted 46 seconds to the hundreds of thousands marching in Washington, D.C. Yet, ABC, NBC and CBS spent six times that on the National Zoo’s new panda cub and four-and-a-half times that on the Climate March.

Since 2013, the networks have devoted just 78 seconds to the March for Life – slightly more than they might have spent broadcasting a couple of burger ads.

This year, ABC, CBS and NBC have no excuse to silence these pro-life voices. This year, the Center for Medical Progress released horrific videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s harvesting of aborted baby parts. This year, CMP’s David Daleiden proved a game-changer not only in the pro-life movement but also in Congress.

This year, it’s time for the networks to stop censoring the news and to tell the truth about the March for Life.

To hold the media accountable on life issues, Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues encourages citizens to contact the network representatives listed below to demand coverage of the march and pro-life issues. Tell @ABC, @CBSNews and @NBCNews to #CovertheMarch on Twitter.

Mr. Steve Burke

CALL NOW:
(877) 784-9793

President, NBC Universal
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Mr. David Rhodes

CALL NOW:
(877) 734-8032

President, CBS News
524 W. 57th Street
New York, NY 10019

Mr. Ben Sherwood

CALL NOW:
(877) 660-5301

President, Disney-ABC Television Group
47 West 66th Street
New York, NY 10023

Outlined below are some important talking points:

  1. Last year, despite hundreds of thousands of marchers, ABC and NBC failed to even mention the March for Life. CBS allotted just 15 seconds. This is NOT journalism. This is bias.
  2. Since 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC have spent just 78 seconds covering the March for Life.
  3. This year, after the Planned Parenthood videos and Congress’ push to defund Planned Parenthood, there is no excuse to ignore the march other than a pure liberal bias.
  4. Ask the media to cover the March for Life fairly and accurately. This includes:
      • Details of the March and its purpose
      • Accurate number of attendees based on the official headcount
      • Speakers and their topics
      • 2016 March for Life theme: “Pro-Life and Pro-Woman Go Hand-in-Hand”
      • Focus on the pro-life rally and attendees, not the outnumbered minority of pro-choice protesters. This rally is not about them, it’s about the unborn

Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues Guidelines

To regain the trust of the American public, Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues urges journalists to adhere to the following guidelines while reporting on life issues:

1. Report on life issues of public interest.

The media have an obligation to report on life, from the unborn to the elderly. That includes videos questioning a taxpayer-funded organization and events like a congressional vote to defund Planned Parenthood.

2. Report on the pro-life movement.

Report on the March for Life and on the movement’s nationwide protests and other pro-life events. Don’t censor voices according to an agenda.

3. Include pro-life voices.

As journalists, remember to include experts who defend life, from conception until natural death, regardless of personal ideology.

4. Refuse conflict-of-interest awards.

Reject awards or benefits, as a journalist, from special interest organizations that expect something in return. And they often expect something in return.

5. Don’t Dismiss. Investigate.

Take seriously the claims against abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood. Don’t assume the talking points of one side. Look into health complaints at facilities and report on patients that have been harmed by abortion.

Alliance Partners:


Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues encourages citizens to petition news outlets to show scenes like these to the American public, instead of engaging in censorship:

March for Life 2015:

March for Life 2014:

March for Life 2013:

The mission of the Media Research Center is to create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish. The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions to the MRC are tax-deductible. Copyright © 2016, Media Research Center. All Rights Reserved.

©Copyright 2016, Media Research Center  |  All Rights Reserved  |  About MRC  |  Contact Us

Source : Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues

and the Media Research Center

Colorado Shooting seems tailor made for Left’s Agenda

I want to share with you an article from the Media Research Center showing the Sunday talk shows on the Colorado shootings. It shows how they asked the GOP candidates about the shooting, how it relates to abortion clinics, and how “rhetoric, blogs, anti PP tapes” etc…. etc…. are all to blame for this attack. Basically EVERYONE is responsible except the guy who done the shooting!!! Loretta Lynch coined the term “crime against women” for the Administration, and even got the Colorado Governor to parrot her remarks. The left is using this issue to attack freedom of speech, by way of blaming bloggers and news for the attacks. And they are even getting to take pot shots at the people who produced the undercover Planned Parenthood videos! All we know about the shooter is he was mumbling about “baby parts”, and it’s everyone’s fault but his!!! It’s almost like the left “created” this shooting is it not??? This one event let’s them progress so many of their agendas!!! It’s all a little too convenient for me….and “Project MK-Ultra” has been in my thoughts for days now!!!

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2015/11/29/nets-hit-gop-guests-after-shootings-pp-charges-hateful-rhetoric

Loretta Lynch coins the term “crime against women” for the administration, even though two of the three victims were MEN!!!

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting/index.html

Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, parrots Loretta Lynch’s talking point about this “Crime Against Women” (Even though two of the three victims were men) and goes on to blame talk shows and bloggers

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/11/30/in-wake-of-shooting-co-governor-focuses-on-bloggers-talk-shows-and-guns/

According to this report on PBS Newshour, a witness said the man was “mumbling and ranting while he was shooting.” And one of his neighbors said “If you talked to him, nothing with him was very cognitive — topics all over place,”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/police-search-for-motives-in-colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting/

And according to the author of this story, who classifies shooter  as white, conservative, and pro-life right in the tag line…….wonder where he stands politically??? Has anyone proved he is either pro-life OR conservative??? Anyway, here’s an excerpt with the names.

Excerpt: The victims have been identified as University of Colorado-Colorado Springs Police Officer, father, husband and pastor Garrett Swasey, 44,; Jennifer Markovsky, a 36-year-old married mother of two originally from Hawaii; and Ke’Arre Stewart, a 29-year-old married father and Iraq War veteran.

http://heavy.com/news/2015/11/robert-lewis-dear-colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-shooting-gunman-shooter-suspect-name-photos-identity-identified-charges-family-motive-pro-life-conservative-age-white/

We all know this shooting will be used over and over and over again by those in the left in attacking Conservatives and especially GOP Presidential candidates. And I’ll bet you, at the end of the day we find this guy is neither a Conservative, or pro-lifer…………..but he IS WHITE so they’ll hammer us to death on that point, but I’d  wager when all is told, the guy will turn out to be a liberal! And I still think that the “Project MK-Ultra” possibility will be haunting my thoughts!!! The fact that mass shootings happen 3 times as often since Obama has taken office than it did from 2000 to 2007 just seems too obvious to dismiss. Then Obama is on the stage talking gun-control within literally hours………….it’s all a little much for me. Do the research on mass shootings like I have, using Obama’s term as your guide………….and you too will find it fishy…………and scary!

Don’t know about the MK Ultra program??? Wish I didn’t!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra