Southern Poverty Law Center

Southern Poverty Law Center Finds Fewer Far-Right Groups, Warns Us To Be Worried Anyway

Counting "extremists"

|

America reacts to a new SPLC report.

Every year the Southern Poverty Law Center lists all the organizations it can assign to one "extremist" category or another. I'm not a fan of the resulting report. (You can see some of my past criticisms of its methodology and conclusions here, herehere, and in my book The United States of Paranoia.) But I'm always interested to see the spin that the group puts on its findings—particularly this year, when the center's census shows substantial declines in both of its major categories. According to the SPLC's new figures, the number of hate groups dropped in 2013 for the second straight year, sliding from 1,007 to 939. And anti-government "Patriot" groups plunged from 1,360 to 1,096, a shrinkage that not only reversed 2012's heavily hyped growth in the category but fell below the number for 2011. How do you cry crisis about that?

The SPLC's Mark Potok adopts a two-punch strategy. One reason extremist groups are less popular, he claims, is that "many issues championed by the radical right have been adopted by purportedly mainstream politicians." (His first example: Some elected officials believe conspiracy theories about Agenda 21. Of course, that was true when the list was longer, too.) Meanwhile, as erstwhile extremists exit the movement, the reduction in the hard core's numbers "often has the effect of fostering, rather than retarding, followers' decisions to finally act out violently." The result, he says, is "a leaner, meaner radical right."

I especially enjoyed the second half of that argument. When the Patriot count was going up last year, Potok predicted that "the movement and its violence will spurt ahead yet again." Now the count is going down, but it turns out that also means violence is liable to rise. Apparently, Potok is going to see a swelling threat no matter which way the numbers that he's touting are moving. For years I've been saying that the size of the SPLC's list is not a very good guide to the size of the domestic terror threat. Who knew that Mark Potok agreed?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

150 responses to “Southern Poverty Law Center Finds Fewer Far-Right Groups, Warns Us To Be Worried Anyway

  1. As I recall, those lying commie rat bastards have tried to claim that Cato is a “hate group”.

    -jcr

    1. Don’t forget the dreaded misogynist Pick Up Artist hate groups.

      1. Jesus, that thread deteriorated quickly…

  2. lol, the most important SPLC list is their donor list

    notreallyajoke.com

    1. Why have you started putting fake websites at the end of your comments again?

      1. Gentle mockery of the spambots, please let me have my little joke

        lightenupdude.com

        1. Oh, I didn’t know you were making fun of the spambots. It makes more sense now.

          I thought you were just randomly putting “.com” on the end of your last sentence.

          1. Jack Daddy FrapFrap thanks you.

          2. Sometimes dude you just gotta roll with it!

            1. You misspelled “jsut”

          3. “I thought you were just randomly putting “.com” on the end of your last sentence”

            He hasn’t caught up with the whole hashtag thing. #you’re it

          4. I think he’s been binge watching Diablo Cody movies again.

        2. Roll that beautiful bean footage.

    2. “the most important SPLC list is their donor list”

      That’s all that is about. An organization with no genuine reason to exist looking to scare more money out of the pearl clutchers and panty bunchers so they can keep their meaningless jobs.

      1. Well also they may have to go out and actually practice law instead of filling dozens of sue and settle lawsuits with DC where the average plaintiff gets 50 bucks while they reep thousands of dollars off the tax payers.

  3. Southern Poverty Law Center Finds Fewer Far-Right Groups, Warns Us To Be Worried Anyway

    I come here for the witty repartee but stay for the concern trolling.

  4. from the report:

    “And state legislatures around the country have either passed or considered laws, generally related to gun control but also encompassing other issues, that purport to “nullify” federal legislation. The doctrine of nullification, *of course,* [emphasis added] was originally devised as an antebellum defense of slavery and then brought back to life by Southern states resisting school desegregation and the civil rights movement. It has been repeatedly found by the nation’s courts to be entirely unconstitutional.”

    I’m not sure I’m a fan of nullification, but the “of course” is telling – it means they won’t even engage Tom Woods’ argument that nullification has a benign history as a counter to federal tyranny – including its use in Northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act.

    If they were honest they would say, “Tom Woods argues such and such, but this is wrong because blah blah.” In other words, they would acknowledge that there are arguments against their position and try to rebut those arguments. Instead, they say their version of reality is “of course” true, and either aren’t aware of the contrary arguments or don’t bother to mention the existence of such arguments to their readers.

    Now that’s a sign of intellectual self-confidence!

    1. If they were honest

      and there you go

    2. They’re also ignoring Jefferson Davis’ farewell speech to the US Senate, in which he denounced the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by the people of the free states.

      -jcr

      1. Imagine my amazement that a Southern legal activist group is aligned with Jefferson Davis and the secessionists. Who could have seen that coming?

    3. doctrine of nullification, *of course,* [emphasis added] was originally devised as an antebellum defense of slavery

      I’m not sure that argument in itself is correct. Although I don’t think Jefferson used the term “nullification”, he was essentially arguing for that in both the Virginia Resolves and the Kentucky Resolves which opposed the Alien & Sedition Acts.

      1. Actually, Jefferson *did* use the word: “[T]he several states who formed [the Constitution,] being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, . . . a Nullification by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” — Kentucky Resolutions of November 14, 1799

        1. But then, Jefferson was an anti-government nutjob, with connections to people involved in the original Tea Party.

    4. These Stalinist boobs completely memory hole the federal government role in crushing slave rebellions and abolitionist revolutionaries like John Brown.

      Do we know slavery wouldn’t have ended sooner if federal troops had not disarmed and executed “violent” abolitionist “terrorists”?

  5. like the rest of the grievance industry, the SPLC relies on the perpetuation of a boogeyman that it claims to fight. If none existed, donations would dry up and the staff would have to find real jobs that add value to the economy.

    The civil rights industry is among the three anachronisms of the day, the others being feminism and labor, dedicated to fighting battles that have largely been won.

    1. Yup.

      You’d think that if there were 1000s of violent, rightwing extremist groups out there, we’d hear of some, you know, actual violence being committed. Far as I can tell, the only political violence I’ve heard of is the rich white kid front of the FSA breaking Starbucks windows whilst wearing Che shirts.

      1. They think evil thoughts and have dog whistles, insidious. . Would the dog whistle talking point be as prominent on the left if they didn’t have that Lee Atwater quote to dredge up all the time?

        1. Should someone not ask if Potok et al always hearing dog whistles and voice speaking to them is not a psychiatric issue?

      2. For a second I thought that was “Gerard Butler Naked” and was I ever willing to click that link.

    2. Hey, don’t forget MADD!

  6. Maybe there’s some problem with their search engine, but I can’t find the part where Floyd Corkins is designated as a hater. I know it can’t be because he’s a left-wing would-be assassin who relied on an SPLC list to find his target.

    1. Remember, we simply cannot tolerate intolerance, so he was justified in trying to kill those guys.

      1. It’s so creepy that so many of the left seem to think that way. “Hate speech isn’t free speech” is another thing I hear a lot.

        1. The idea seems to be disturbingly prevalent on both the left and right that free speech equals popular speech and uncomfortable expression should be censored. These people creep me the fuck out. Every time I hear stories that include free speech zones or the like I want to throw my laptop across the room. Fascists to the left of me, fundamentalists to the right..

          1. And here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

            1. + reservoir dogs

              1. – 1 ear

      2. Well it’s not about academic freedom or freedom of speech, it’s about academic justice and justice of speech. Heil!

    2. These sarcastic responses to a serious issue make me angry. Almost angry enough to want to kill people and smear Chick Fil A in their faces.

  7. Much like the Holy Roman Empire which was neither an Empire or Roman, and probably not very holy, The Southern Poverty Law Center is not Southern, has nothing to do with the poor, and is probably a pretty shitty law center as well.

    They really should consider a name change.

    1. Society for Playing on Liberal Concern

      1. Society for Profiting from Liberal Contributors

        1. Serious People Laugh at these Cornballs

          1. Shyster Purveyors of Leftover Crap

    2. Whatever good they’ve done in the past, nowadays, it certainly looks like they’re trying to paint opinions they don’t like with a veneer of racism–that may be undeserved.

      When you hear that the Southern Poverty Law Center has denounced some organization as being part of the far-right, who here thinks, “Oh, well they must be against Agenda 21”?

      1. This article is the first time I’ve ever heard of Agenda 21.

        1. Me too. I didn’t know what it was. After reading the Wikipedia entry, I now hate Agenda 21. I guess that makes me a right-wing fringe lunatic Nazi. Oh well.

          College hoops!!!!

          1. I read it and got all creeped out, then saw that it was a nonbinding UN resolution, and relaxed. Given the history of UN resolutions, I’m not all that worried that this one will finally be the one people actually give a shit about.

            1. A non binding referendum with a large number of US cities trying to implement those goals.

            2. Maybe, but proggies take that shit pretty seriously. I find it very troubling that some Ca communities are trying to condemn suburbs as ‘blight’, raise property taxes and minimum lot sizes to force everyone into apt complexes. I have a hard time not calling them hives.

              They took that from agenda 21.

              1. They took that from agenda 21.

                Vice versa most likely. That’s been a fundamental part of the urban planning movement since at least the 70’s.

          2. Ooh! There’s an offshoot Agenda 21 for Culture! I can figure out if it’s stupid or retarded because the Wikipedia article is like the adults in Peanuts cartoon. Whatever it is, it’s a waste of resources.

            1. can’t

        2. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but if you didn’t like Kyoto, there’s no reason to think you’ll like Agenda 21.

          And while it’s currently voluntary, I have no doubt but that the progressives would love to implement it as a treaty for sustainability if they could.

          Like I said, I don’t know anything about the conspiracy theories–literally nothing–but it can be implemented on the local level (voluntarily) without ever signing a treaty, and I suspect that’s where the conspiracy theorists probably come in.

          I believe a number of American cities are participating, and a number of states have tried to implement laws prohibiting cities and counties from participating.

          Read what I linked below, and it seems they want to do things like change “consumption patterns” and achieve “a more sustainable population”, and they want to implement it through “international institutions and financial mechanisms”.

          I can think of benign ways to interpret all that stuff, but then I look at what people like Barack Obama and the progressives have advocated and done, and the benign ways to interpret it might seem rather naive to a lot of people.

          1. financial mechanisms

            I hear redistribution with a large helping of bureaucracy.

            1. Doing some research, looks like the conspiracy people don’t like “sustainable population” either.

              The way to limit population growth is to make the infant mortality rate drop and educate women and give them a chance to contribute economically outside the home.

              Much of the UN’s development focus is on achieving those goals, and those are well known efforts to aid workers globally, but to some Americans, it sounds like you want to institute a one child policy a la China.

              Various progressives supporting something like a one child policy doesn’t help any, and I’ve seen ’em do it.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_credit

    3. Socons, Please Leave Country

    4. Social Parasites Lying for Cash

    5. Well, they name themselves after the things they find most threatening. Southerners, poor people, and the law, namely. They didn’t want to include “white people” because it’s generally understood.

  8. “Many issues championed by the radical right have been adopted by purportedly mainstream politicians.”

    If “many issues” have been adopted by mainstream politicians, then how can they be part of the “radical right”?

    And what the hell do they mean by “purportedly mainstream” politicians? Do the “mainstream politicians” they’re talking about hold office as either Democrats or Republicans at the national level? If so, then there’s nothing “purportedly” mainstream about them–they’re just mainstream.

    1. But the Nazis were elected to the Reichstag! Would you call *them* mainstream politicians, huh? derp derp

      1. I would have called them mainstream German politicians, yes.

        Odious authoritarian a-holes, sure, but that’s practically a synonym for mainstream politician, anyway.

        1. Yeah, I think he was calling that stuff “derp derp”.

          Fact is that the Nazis were carrying 44% of the vote. So, yeah, they were mainstream–regrettable, unfortunately, shamefully, mainstream.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..on_results

          If the SPLC wants to denounce the American people for going right wing extremist, then that’s one thing*, but they were associating our politicians with the “radical right”–for being against Agenda 21?

          That’s just garbage.

          *Gonna have a hard time telling me the pro-marijuana legalization, favoring gay marriage population of the United States is slipping into the radical right, either.

        2. I would have called them mainstream German politicians

          And don’t forget that the German Communist Party regularly got high teens votes. Basically, in all the German elections in the 1930s, the two parties which actually opposed democracy got a combined total around 60%. That is, 60% of the German people were voting to end democracy and establish some kind of authoritarian state.

          1. Which just goes to show you how incompatible democracy and liberty are, ironically enough.

            1. I think a lot of people saw it as a way to oppose the Nazis.

              This was before Stalin had done some of his worst. This was years before the Spanish Civil War. Stalin’s “Great Purge” wasn’t until 1936.

              It’s hard to begrudge people for not knowing what the communists were going to do in 1933. That’s one of the reasons I despise progressives today. They have history to guide them.

              People back then didn’t have that. Maybe it was like holding your nose and voting against Obama. If I have to vote for a social conservative, I hate that. There may have been a lot of Germans holding their noses when they voted for the communists, too.

              1. Possibly, although a quick Wikipedia check shows the KPD getting votes ranging from 9-14% before the Nazis became an electoral force.

              2. The Communists were known to be oppressive and murderous long before 1933, at least to anyone paying attention and with a clear mind.

          2. the German Communist Party regularly got high teens votes

            Was there something in the GCP platform that was particularly interesting for drug using young adults?

            1. Heh, heh, heh.

              Of course, being the home nation of Marx & Engels & just 16 years removed from the Russian Revolution, it is probably surprising the vote wasn’t higher. However, the Social Democrat Party had a long pedigree with German workers.

  9. “Some elected officials believe conspiracy theories about Agenda 21.”

    I don’t know anything about conspiracy theories regarding Agenda 21, but this reminds me of when I was a kid and the backward masking craze was in full stride.

    They brought in Venom records and started playing them backwards:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Hell

    But if you’re looking for Satanic messages on Venom records, you really don’t have to play them backwards. Just look at what the lyrics say played normally!

    Anyway, you don’t have to play Agenda 21 backwards to see some pretty horrible shit, there, either.

    Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combatting poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.

    ….

    Section IV: Means of Implementation: implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..ementation

    I don’t care what the conspiracy theories say–fuck Agenda 21.

  10. Perhaps all the prepper types are barricaded in their underground bunkers awaiting the Apocalypse.

    1. You forgot the part where they play Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries while riding around in their Klan suits

      1. You’re being funny, but Shrike is probably serious.

        1. but Shrike is probably serious.

          Interesting idea. Can Shrike really ever be described as be serious?

          1. Are we confusing ‘serious’ with ‘sincere’?

          2. Can Shrike really ever be described as be serious?

            Maybe. Say 8% of the time?

            1. +1 reading comprehension

      2. “You forgot the part where they play Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries while riding around in their Klan suits”

        Have you hacking my webcam?

        1. been. I don’t know why 90% of my comments always seem to be missing a word.

          1. Booze.

            1. I could probably blame everything on booze or lack of booze.

              1. BOOOOOSH!!! BOOOOOOOZE!!!

          2. 8% of them are solid.

    2. Well don’t keep us in suspense – head on over to DU so you can retrieve the latest talking point and tell us which it is: dangerous lunatics storming DC to lynch the uppity negro, or basement dwellers hunkered in their bomb shelters masturbating furiously to pre-ban Guns ‘n’ Ammo mags from the early 90’s?

      1. you forgot joos

        1. j0000s is always implied.

    3. Actually they are on facebook planing friends and family BBQs and exchanging canning recipes.

      You really like demonizing fucking everyone don’t you.

      I personally like it that law abiding people have guns and keep some water stored in the basement in case a tornado or hurricane cuts through the utilities.

      “People who make a hobby out of making the best medical kit…MONSTERS!!!”

      1. Actually are preppers just the rural counterparts to hipsters?

        Beards – check
        Crafty – check
        Probably listen to rock and roll – check
        Search for authenticity – check
        Tend bees and/or chickens – check

        Holy fuck preppers are hipster!!!

  11. No Bo Cara to come screaming to the defense of SPLC and accuse anyone who doesn’t do the same of being a SOCON!!!!!!(!!!!)!!!!!! yet?

      1. I don’t get the “sno conz” thing, is it because they knew they couldn’t match the cutting wit of “teabagger”, so they didn’t even try? Or is there something malevolent about sno cones I’m not aware of?

        1. It sounds vaguely sexual to me, but not in a good way.

      2. we gonna have some sno conz in the DPRMD

    1. Not yet. I’m sure he is furiously scouring the web for right wing derp to shame all of we crypto-right wingers into.. something. The message will be some version of “see how awful those reich wingers are, too!” as if no one here understood that before his arrival.

    2. Supposedly anagrams of one’s name can reveal one’s character. For “Mark Potok” I got “Tramp kook”.

      1. I just ran my name through an anagram generator. Here are some results:

        A Loved Gun
        Land Vogue
        Vegan Loud
        Veal Do Gun

        1. Funny, I wound up with hits like “Marlin With Wool” and “Roman Hit Willow”.

          1. Worldliest Snatch. :p

          2. Couldn’t find one for me. Got banjoed skipping one letter(which I don’t think is even a word unless you’re sloopy) , and Bad One skipping two.

        2. I got

          Goblin See
          Bingo Eels (my favorite)
          Senile Bog
          Lob Genies
          Bee Logs In
          Bone Legs I

          1. Missed a good one:

            Big Eel Son

            1. Big Eel Son! It sounds like something Ed Reed would yell into the camera after he returned an interception for a touchdown.

              “Big Eel, Son! Big Eel!”

          2. Senile Bog

            Is awesome if the second word is Russian.

            1. Bog does not need to remember anything.

        3. Fuck, I got Steve Smith.

          1. YES, YOU GET STEVE SMITH. PREPARE!!!!

  12. “What am I going to do now?”

    Buy a leather suit, boots and horse whip and put an ad on craigslist.

    1. Reason is always ahead of the curve.

  13. Speaking of things which should give you the night sweats…

    Teh HEROIN

    Many believe that part of the drug problem lies in the high conversion rate of single-family homes into multiunit rentals. The police say such units can be breeding grounds for drugs because of a well-established network, mostly of young women, who live in them and play host to out-of-town dealers. The dealers can make quick money by buying heroin in New York or Springfield, Mass., for as little as $6 a bag and selling it here for $30. About $2 million in heroin is trafficked every week in Vermont.

    “If you’re a guy from New York, you can come here with 500 bags of heroin, sell it and sleep with three different women before you go home the next day,” said Chief Baker. Many of the women, he said, receive rent subsidies and food stamps and use heroin themselves. “The entire infrastructure is here for these guys to function, make quick money and leave,” he said.

    To help focus more attention on the drug problem, Rutland applied a year ago for a $1 million federal grant from the Department of Justice, which it did not get. But it used the application as a blueprint to organize a communitywide coalition of concerned citizens and government agencies. It calls itself Project Vision and it complements the work of the police and social services.

    1. “If you’re a guy from New York, you can come here with 500 bags of heroin, sell it and sleep with three different women before you go home the next day,” said Chief Baker.

      I wish I had half that much ambition.

    2. …you can come here with 500 bags of heroin, sell it and sleep with three different women before you go home the next day…

      Where is this now?

    3. organize a communitywide coalition of concerned citizens

      Words that raise the hair on the back of my neck.

    4. The solutions are so obvious. Outlaw multiunit rentals. Or don’t allow young women to rent them. Being a top man is so easy.

  14. The infrastructure of despair is in place. What the fuck else would you do?

    I wonder how easy it is to start a business in Rutland, Vermont.

    1. Reminds me of a crack dealer I knew who saved his pennies and opened up a mini mart with the proceeds of his work. Gave it up as way to much work for too little return after a year. Sold the business and went back to the black market. The wonders of regulation and prohibition at work.

      1. Reminds me of this meth cook I knew who used some of his revenue and bought a car wash to laun…..

        Wait, what. You know crack dealers?

    2. Huh, huh, Rut-land.

  15. PBS takes down the NYT Opinion Page.

    NEWSHOUR: What exactly is “outrage” in political opinion media?

    SARAH SOBIERAJ: Outrage is a concept we developed to describe political speech and behavior involving efforts to provoke emotional responses ? especially anger, fear and moral indignation ? from the audience through the use of categorical statements, misleading or inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks and partial truths about opponents. It is a form of political communication that glosses over the messy nuances of complex political issues and instead focuses on melodrama, mockery and forecasts of impending doom.

    What’s more, this unique brand of incivility has become the mainstay of an entire genre of political opinion media that is not really about dialogue or information, but instead takes the form of a wildly entertaining verbal jousting match, with the victor of the day being the team that most effectively paints the other side as dangerous, misguided or inept.

  16. Haha, just kidding.

    We knew there would be quite a bit of outrage, but it was rampant. (The worst offenders) were using outrage speech and behavior at a rate of more than one instance per minute ?. There are more programs on the right that are outrage-based than there are on the left ? talk radio, for example, is over 90 percent conservative ? and if you look at the average number of outrage incidents per episode, there are more instances in shows hosted by conservatives than liberals.

    1. I knew it was a trap and I kept reading anyway..

    2. I was waiting for the projection. In your first post, it didn’t come, and I actually went “hey, is this actually a fair look at both TEAMs?” And then…the inevitable, inescapable projection.

  17. More:

    There has always been outrageous political speech in the media, but it was uncommon. Father Coughlin was noteworthy for his venom, but he was an exception. Over the last 25 to 30 years, an entire genre grounded in outrage-based content has developed. We argue that this increase isn’t a simple reflection of an increase in political polarization on the part of audience, but instead reflects of a set of technological, regulatory and political changes that have rendered this type of content profitable in a way that would have been unheard of in the ’70s. There are certainly fans, but the real driving force is profitability.

    We deregulated hate speech, and now Rush Limbaugh is running around yelling “FIRE” in theaters across America! AND MAKING MONEY DOING IT.

    Oh, woe, America is DOOMED.

    1. Anybody who thinks American political discourse is too divisive today is a historical illiterate.

      1. I’m not voting again until they bring back duels.

      2. Since people used to fight duels over newspaper articles, I think this professor is full of *merde.*

        1. DwC was too fast.

    2. Outrage is a concept we developed to describe political speech and behavior involving efforts to provoke emotional responses ? especially anger, fear and moral indignation ? from the audience through the use of categorical statements, misleading or inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks and partial truths about opponents. It is a form of political communication that glosses over the messy nuances of complex political issues and instead focuses on melodrama, mockery and forecasts of impending doom. …

      (The worst offenders) were using outrage speech and behavior at a rate of more than one instance per minute ?. There are more programs on the right that are outrage-based than there are on the left ? talk radio, for example, is over 90 percent conservative ? and if you look at the average number of outrage incidents per episode, there are more instances in shows hosted by conservatives than liberals. Having said that, the left is very nasty too.

      Left unstated is the assumption that outrage is unjustified and unproductive. And the talk radio I’ve heard isn’t nearly as insidious or nasty as Stewart or Mahr or incoherent court astrologers like Krugman.

      1. incoherent court astrologers like Krugman.

        Nice.

  18. There are certainly fans, but the real driving force is profitability.

    Lol cause and effect is HARD.

    1. That sentence literally makes no sense. How do you have profitability without popularity? It’s not like they’re selling McLaren F1s.

      1. How do you have profitability without popularity?

        Form a government

  19. I actually went “hey, is this actually a fair look at both TEAMs?”

    To be fair, they do say, “And the left does it, too,” but they make it pretty clear they believe REPUBLIKKKANZ ARE WURSER!

    1. The authors expose their flawed argument by equating Rachel Maddow to Bill O’Reilly. One is a propagandist. The other is biased but tries to be honest. I’ll let you decide which is which.

      Smug, patronizing and childish, the hallmarks of a progressive argument.

      1. lol I love how Bill O’Reilly is painted as a rightwinger. From what I’ve seen he’s more of a blowhard populist.

  20. The SPLC reminds me of that Simpsons episode with the anti-bear patrol. The SPLC is one of those organizations that has to see racism in a politician ordering an all egg white omelet to exists. If they don’t warn us about extremest groups they will not get invited to New York to appear on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and the Oprah show. They won’t be invited to the plush political fundraisers. They may have to actually go out and practice law. They can’t fight the man. I have dealt with these types in one of my jobs. They all made a fortune off sticking to the man.

  21. Morris Dees is a corrupt fake who lives in a fabulous house that’s probably worth more than wherever a Koch brother lives. It’s filled with expensive art objects. And the SPLC is one of the few “non-profit” organizations with about $238 million in assets, some of it in a Cayman Islands account. This guy is ripe for a media takedown, but unfortunately the media doesn’t like attacking an ally.

  22. Maybe they’re worried because they can’t find us?

    heh heh heh

  23. Jesse, stop paying attention to the SPLC. They’re not worth your time.

  24. Some elected officials believe conspiracy theories about Agenda 21.

    Huh?

    What conspiracy theories?

    The proposals look pretty bad and are fairly marxist. How is it “conspiracy theories” to oppose a marxist UN document?

  25. WHen the left bitches about those that talk of conspiracy theories it means that they have discovered what they are really up too and now they must be shamed and mocked to silence them.

    SPLC: Shysters Policing Liberal Cumdumpsters

  26. Hos gonna ho. Executive Directors and Development Directors don’t get fund raising commissions unless they raise funds.

  27. I dust-off this subject, the SPLC had been dropped by the FBI.
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..le/2546305
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/poli…..outta-here

    1. Here one more article about that case. http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..prise-you/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.