Southern Poverty Law Center And Much More

For those who have not heard of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) you may find this discussion of interest and for others it may provide new insights. According to its website SPLC "monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public." That sounds good, right? But all is not as it seems. A recently released SPLC report claims that the number of people dedicated to the overthrow of the federal government has increased during the years President Obama has been in the White House.  It is instructive to note the groups SPLC deems as threats to the federal government.  The next few paragraphs touch on the report while those that follow expand the discussion.

 

Jim Kouri authored an article dated 13 May 2013 dealing with the SPLC report. In it he quotes former NYPD detective Samuel Dirkson as saying: "While mentioning dozens of well-known conservative groups, SPLC is silent about groups such as the anti-American leftist group Code Pink, the anti-Semitic Free Gaza, and the militant, pro-gay organization Bash Back!...as well as the Alliance of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender students (LGBTS), which targets churches."  Dirkson adds that "if you are not left-wing, then you're a hate group, it seems." To view a listing of the groups go here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/active-patriot-groups-in-the-united-states  Are you surprised at who made it and who didn't?  To read the entire Kouri article go here: http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news336.htm.

 

It is a disturbing fact that the federal government has, in effect, partnered with the SPLC, most notably the Homeland Security and Justice Departments.  Just weeks before release of the SPLC study Matt Barber wrote an article dated 11 Feburary 2013 wherein he quotes Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel: “The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history of maliciously slandering pro-family groups with language and labels that incite hatred and undermine civil discourse, ... In the issues of family and marriage, Christians are literally in the crosshairs of radical homosexual activists, and the SPLC is fueling the hatred and providing the targets." The article further states that "the Obama administration is in bed with this group.”  A logical deduction one can draw from the SPLC listing of hate groups is that those of us who respect the Constitution, disagree with present government policies, are concerned about UN intrusion into our governmental affairs, worry about endless overseas entanglements, are religious (especially Christians), are concerned with the national debt, and believe the Federal Reserve is a detriment to our fiscal stability are a threat to the government - such people were once recognized as patriots and loyal Americans - but now, according to SPLC and others, we are haters and a danger to the current order.  The fact is that SPLC now labels as enemies of the state the very kinds of people who founded and built this nation. To read Barber's entire article go here: http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2013/02/11/bloody-hands-the-southern-poverty-law-center-n1509321/page/full/  There's more.

 

A Judicial Watch press release issued 29 January 2013 states that "it has obtained nearly two dozen pages of emails from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights and Tax divisions revealing questionable behavior by agency personnel while negotiating for Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) co-founder Morris Dees to appear as the featured speaker at a July 31, 2012, “Diversity Training Event.”  To see a few snippets of the email traffic (and more) go here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/jw-obtains-emails-exposing-connections-between-doj-and-controversial-southern-policy-law-center/

  

"In July 2011, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) sued the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota, in apparent coordination with the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, for discrimination based on sexual orientation related to bullying."  This was lifted from an article by Tony Perkins dated 26 February 2013.  According to Perkins, "The SPLC said the school district’s anti-bullying policy that was neutral toward homosexuality, declaring it was neither a moral right or moral wrong, was 'discriminatory' and sued the District. PAL, which opposed the SPLC’s imposition of their pro-homosexual bullying policy, was then placed on the SPLC’s national hate group list along with the Klan."  Perkins asks "Who is the real bully?  Lest one might think this was an isolated case of bullying, in January 2013, a federal magistrate judge in Colorado called out the Southern Poverty Law Center for their tactics."  For more go here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/southern-poverty-law-center-chronicles-explosive-rise-in-radical-anti-government-patriot-movement/ 

 

One of the outcomes derived from SPLC activities was the publication of the Missouri Information Analysis Center's (MIAC) report submitted to local authorities and police officials statewide.  Based largely on SPLC information it provided officials with insights as to how to identify potential domestic terrorists.   Such centers exist in every state and are an arm of the federal government. What is relevant for this discussion is the listing of domestic terrorists disseminated throughout the state, even impacted (although limited) the 2008 national elections.  In coordination with the FBI and the Missouri Fusion Center, the MIAC report as released named supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul as potential domestic terrorists - be on the look-out for cars having supporting bumper stickers, for instance.  Other clues as to how to identify potential domestic terrorists were offered.  As one would expect most were right leaning/conservative groups.  A copy of the report along with a local South Dakoda reporter's commentary of the MIAC is here:  http://www.blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?ID=2980  More here:  http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/local/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/article_b929741f-2302-5c1e-bcbd-1bc154375a8f.html

While an appology to the three presidential candidates was issued, the report nonetheless represents intent and its intent sent a broader message.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/49313711/Apology-for-miac-report

 

Other examples are available but for the sake of limiting this discussion, please consider one of the many charges SPLC makes against conservative leaning organizations.  They claim that these groups violently oppose restrictions on gun ownership for fear that the government is seeking to take them away.  We need only observe activities within the Administration and Congress to see how such concerns could arise.  For instance, the efforts of Senator Feinstein's most recent bill to ban or control selected weapons and ammunition magazines is a case in point. Watch this short video of Senator Feinstein's 1995 interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" following her successful spearheading of a weapons ban enacted in 1994 (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/12/dianne-feinstein-on-wanting-to-ban-guns.html).  Do her words dispel concerns that the government has designs on eviscerating the 2nd Amendment?  The President, Attorney General and others hard left-leaning advocates inside and outside government have for years made similar comments.  In any case efforts to minimize what Feinstein said will not change what she said - her current efforts affirm that her desires have not changed.

 

Speaking of concerns many express about government intensions, can anyone explain why the Homeland Security Department needs 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition?  According to the linked article if we assume ammunition expenditure at a rate equal to the height of the Iraq war that amount of ammunition would sustain a hot war for 20 plus years.  Check here for more details: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

 

Read these three links with great care.  They provide a possible answer to the above question and maybe even a possible reason why the government is purchasing so many guns, armaments and ammunition for civilian, not military, purposes. The implications are frightening.  View the President's comments in the brief clip in the first link.  He expresses his intent to have a civilian army just as powerful as our regular army.  He is using taxpayer monies to fund his ambition.  The operative question here is WHY?  http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-government-stockpiling-guns-ammo/.  See also here:  http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-government-stockpiling-guns-ammo/ http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47844  and here:  http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/

 

Since the SPCL is a radical left wing organization it is instructive to consider two relevant definitions.  The Oxford Dictionary defines left wing as the "radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system".  As noted in the very first linked item the hard left-leaning SPLC claims that a vast number of right (anti-socialistic) leaning groups across the country are either terroristic or trending so and considers them to be a danger to the government.  To this point consider Wikipedia's definition of left wing terrorism which is "sometimes called Marxist-Leninist terrorism or revolutionary/left-wing terrorism - is a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalists governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist societies."  It is easy to see that these definitions closely align with both the contents of this note and their implications.  Given readily available evidence it is easy to see that there is, indeed, a common ideological link between the radical left SPLC and certain elements of our government.  Whether the implications are practibable or even possible in our country is hard for any of us to ponder; but, to deny that the implications are there is to deny history.  

George Burns