Uncategorized

‘Lawfare’ by Muslims who sued restaurant flames out

hijab

A lawsuit by seven Muslim women alleging a California restaurant discriminated against them because of their religion has gone down in flames.

The women are withdrawing their claim against the Urth Caffe in Laguna Beach without getting anything in return.

“This lawsuit was a fraud and a hoax from the get-go,” said David Yerushalmi, senior counsel with the American Freedom Law Center.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR helped launched the lawsuit. Among many other complaints, CAIR has sued the authors of a WND Books expose, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” which documented the group’s origins as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and its current ties to political Islam.

Yerushalmi said that after two years of litigation and “after plaintiffs’ leftist-progressive lawyers, including the ACLU, spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to force a huge financial payoff for themselves and their clients at Urth Caffe’s expense, they have received no money whatsoever and have effectively dropped their claims only to run for the hills.”

The woman claimed they were subjected to religious discrimination when Urth Caffe staff asked them to leave after they refused to follow the restaurant’s seating policy.

Customers are required to give up the highly sought outdoor tables after 45 minutes if there are people waiting for them.

Support WND’s legal fight to expose the Hamas front in the U.S., the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The women are Sara Khalil Farsakh of Corona, Soondus Ahmed of Lake Forest, Sara Soumaya Chamma of Irvine, Yumna H. Hameed of San Juan Capistrano, Safa Rawag of Sunnyvale, and Marwa Rawag and Rawan Hamdan of Amman, Jordan.

The American Freedom Law Center said that during the discovery period, the evidence demonstrated that Urth Caffe, and especially its Laguna Beach café, is a “very popular spot for young Muslims to enjoy organic, heirloom coffee and delicious meals and desserts.”

“A very large percentage of its customer base are Muslims, many of whom wear hijabs. The evidence, mostly in the form of security video tape, proved there was no discrimination against the seven women, or anyone else for that matter.”

The cafe had filed a cross-claim for trespass when the women filed their complaint of religious discrimination.

The cafe owners had offered to work with the women face-to-face to iron out any misunderstandings.

Instead, AFLC said, the women turned to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who in turn “directed the women to a small band of hard-core progressive lawyers.”

“These lawyers badly miscalculated and filed the lawsuit,” AFLC said.

Yerushalmi said the evidence proved there was no discrimination, and Urth Caffe “agreed to do what they would have done without a lawsuit: make the seating policy clearer to customers and to staff.”

“Let this be a lesson to all others. If you use lawfare as your jihad against an AFLC client, be prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars and to get nothing in return!”

‘Civilization jihad’

Robert Muise, also a senior counsel for AFLC, pointed out that CAIR, which was named a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, was previously named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding case and identified as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

He said the lawsuit amounted to what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”

“In other words, this lawsuit was being waged to use our anti-discrimination laws not for equal protection, but to attain special protection and rights for Shariah-adherent Muslims who reject American and the Judoe-Christian values it stands for,” Muise said.

The women had been refused permission by a judge to sue anonymously.

 

Advertisements
Standard
Uncategorized

DHS chief: Dem child-abuse claim ‘cowardly’

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen speaks to reporters at the White House June 18, 2018 (Screenshot White House video)

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen speaks to reporters at the White House June 18, 2018 (Screenshot White House video)

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen sharply criticized Democratic lawmakers who contend the Trump administration is using illegal immigrant children as a “leverage” to force Congress to overhaul the immigration system and build a border wall.

She was asked at the White House press briefing Monday what she would say to Democrats making the accusation.

“I’d say that is a very cowardly response,” she said. ” It is within their power to make the laws and change the laws, and they should do so.”

The administration contends it is bound by law, a 2016 court consent decree known as the Flores settlement, which requires that unaccompanied children be held by the government for only 20 days.

Critics insist DHS has discretion regarding the separation of families, with some labeling the new “zero-tolerance” immigration policy referring all illegal entries to the Justice Department a form of child abuse.

Trump officials argue that children become separated when families enter the country illegally and then seek asylum to extend their stay. They enter the country knowing children can be held only 20 days. Because asylum petitions require more than 20 days to process, the government must either release the adults and children together or hold the adults and release the children. Experience has shown that adult illegal immigrants released while their claim is pending usually don’t show up for their hearings.

Another reporter asked Nielsen if she had seen the photos circulating of children in cages — including an initial viral photo that was taken during the Obama administration — and audio clips of children “wailing,” which were released Monday.

Nielsen said she hadn’t heard the recordings, and in a follow-up was asked if that is the “image of children that you want out there.”

“The image I want of this country is of an immigration system secures that our borders and upholds our humanitarian ideals,” she replied. “Congress needs to fix it.”

Another reporter noted former first lady Laura Bush compared the separation of the illegal-alien families to the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, and current first lady Melania Trump also has expressed concern about the issue.

“Calling attention to this matter is very important,” Nielsen said. “This is a very serious issue that has resulted after years and years of Congress not taking action. So, I would thank them both for their comments, I would thank them both for their concerns — I share their concerns — but Congress is the one that needs to fix this.”

Another reporter asked, how is the family separation “not child abuse”?

“The vast, vast majority of children who are in the care of HHS (Health and Human Services) — 10,000 of the 12,000 now — were sent here alone by their parents. That’s when they were separated,” she said.

“So, somehow we’ve conflated everything. Those are two separate issues. Ten thousand of those currently in custody were sent by their parents, with strangers, to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone,” said Nielsen.

“We now care for them. We have high standards. We give them meals. We give them medication. We give them medical care. There are videos, there are TVs,” she said, noting she has visited the centers herself.

One reporter claimed that the separations began only after the administration launched it’s zero-tolerance policy.

“That’s actually not true,” Nielsen said.

The Obama and Bush administrations separated families, she noted.

“They absolutely did.”

She acknowledged that the separations occurred at a lower rate during previous administrations, but insisted, “This is not new.”

Nielsen was asked why Trump hasn’t shown compassion toward the separated illegal-alien children and why he doesn’t pause the separations while Congress works on a fix.

“He has been attempting to work with Congress since he’s been in office,” she replied. “He’s made it very clear that we will enforce the laws of the United States as long as he is here.”

Nielsen said Trump “has continually reached out to Congress to fix this, and I think what you’ve seen him do in the last few days is that.”

She emphasized that the only people who benefit from the system now are the drug smugglers, human traffickers and terrorists.

Nielsen said that if Congress closes the loopholes in the law that make separating children from the parents necessary, “we can keep families together.”

She noted families were kept together during the Obama administration only until a court ruled that both accompanied and unaccompanied children must be released after 20 days.

That means, she said, that “we can’t detain families together.”

“Our only option is to not enforce the law.”

Asked again whether the administration is using the children as pawns for policy purposes, Nielsen shot back that the ones using children for pawns are the the smugglers and traffickers.

She cited a 314 percent increase in adults showing up with children who are not part of their family.

“Those are traffickers, those are smugglers, those are MS 13 (gang members), those are criminals, those are abusers,” she said.

“Closing that loophole will enable us to detain families together, throughout the proceeding, as they’ve done in previous administrations.”

Pressed again, she was asked if she could say “definitively” that the children are not being “used as a pawn” to get Congress to support the border wall.

“The children are not being used as a pawn,” she said. “We are trying to protect the children, which is why I am asking congress to act.”

She was asked again about the photos and recordings of crying children and asked if they were an intended or unintended consequence of administration policy.

“I think that they reflect the focus of those who post such pictures and narratives. The narratives we don’t see are the narratives of the crime, of the opiods, of the smugglers, of people who are killed by gang members. American children who are recruited and then when they lose the drugs they are tased and beaten.

“We don’t have a balanced view of what is happening,” she said.

The border is “being overrun by those who have no right to cross it.”

She urged people who are seeking asylum go to a port of entry.

“You do not need to break the laws of the United States to seek asylum.”

Standard
Uncategorized

Judicial Watch sues to uncover Obama’s secret refugee deals

The U.N.'s massive Dadaab camp in Kenya sends a steady stream of Somali refugees to the United States.

The U.N.’s massive Dadaab camp in Kenya sends a steady stream of Somali refugees to the United States.

Washington watchdog Judicial Watch is asking the federal government to provide information about Barack Obama’s refugee-resettlement campaigns.

The organization filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in Washington federal court “for records on sites that were considered for the resettlement of refugees in the United States during the last two years of the Obama administration.”

The watchdog wants all records “reflecting the locations within the United States that were considered as possible sites for refugee resettlement under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in 2015 and 2016.”

It also is seeking records about the local organizations working in their communities in the resettlements.

Nearly two years ago, Judicial Watch released 128 pages of paperwork showing a secret strategy under the Obama administration for Rutland, Vermont. The mayor and a few private groups worked “to conceal from the public their plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees into the small southern Vermont town,” Judicial Watch said.

The mayor and others “shrouded the plan in such secrecy that not even the town’s aldermen were informed of what was taking place behind closed doors.”

Eventually, the aldermen raised protests to the State Department and started investigating the mayor.

The refugee program is run by the State Department, which now has admitted it is working with nine major nonprofit groups, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for their work to resettle refugees.

There were nearly 85,000 such people admitted to the U.S. during 2016, almost exactly on target with what Obama wanted.

They included 16,370 from Congo, 12,587 from Syria, 12,347 from Burma, 9,880 from Iraq and 9,020 from Somalia.

They also included nearly 39,000 Muslims given special access to the United States, the report said.

While there were 70,000 admitted the year before, and Obama wanted 110,000 admitted during 2017, under President Trump, only 29,322 were admitted in 2017.

It was at that time the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported, “Increases in the number of USRAP applicants approved for resettlement in the United States from countries where terrorists operate have raised questions about the adequacy of applicant screening.”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said his group wants to know “which towns across America were, without input and over the objections of residents, targeted for refugee settlements by the Obama administration.”

“And we are investigating to make sure now that the current State Department is being more transparent in its placement of refugees,” he said.

WND reported last February that dozens of resettlement offices were closed or cut back because of the abrupt reduction in admissions with special privileges.

During the finals months of Obama’s tenure, he took in 23,428 “refugees,” according to the Refugee Processing Center.

Ann Corcoran, a leading refugee watchdog who authors the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, told WND at the time she believed the Obama administration and the federal resettlement contractors were deliberately trying to turn red states blue by injecting them with refugees who tend to vote for Democrats.

Internationally, the program also has been under fire.

Last year, Denmark said it would no longer “allow any refugees into the country this year under a United Nations program and will seek flexibility in determining how many may resettle in the future instead of a set quota.”

Standard
Uncategorized

Dershowitz: ACLU ‘denying core civil liberties’

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz

Noted civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz warns that the American Civil Liberties Union is putting a “final nail in its coffin.”

The stunning conclusion, in his Jerusalem Post column republished at Breaking Israel News, blames the ACLU’s decision to jump with both feet into political battles.

“It has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group,” wrote Dershowitz. “The final nail in its coffin was the announcement that for the first time in its history the ACLU would become involved in partisan electoral politics, supporting candidates, referenda and other agenda-driven political goals.”

Dershowitz, once a member of the ACLU board, said the board used to be comprised of leaders who were “deeply committed to core civil liberties, especially freedom of speech, opposition to prosecutorial overreach and political equality.”

There were Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, right-wingers and left-wingers.

He cited the “shoe on the other foot test,” which is whether or not a liberty issue would be viewed the same way by a person of an opposing party.

“Today, the ACLU wears only one shoe and it is on its left foot. Its color is blue,” he warned.

He quoted a recent New Yorker headline about the ACLU’s engagement in electoral politics that said the group was beginning “to move in step with the times.”

“Since its establishment nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU has been, in the words of The New Yorker, ‘Fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with any political power that its leadership, in the 1980s and 90s, declined even to give awards to like-minded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression,’” Dershowitz wrote.

Now, there is “no longer any room in the ACLU for true conservatives who are deeply committed to neutral civil liberties.”

“The litmus test is support for hard-left policies.”

He explained the driving force is money.

“ACLU contributors, including some of its most generous contributors, are strong anti-Trump zealots who believe that the end (getting rid of Trump) justifies any means (including denying Trump and his associates core civil liberties and due process),” he wrote.

He said President Trump has so triggered the left that they are giving more money to the ACLU and demanding the organization move further left and become more aggressive.

“The move of the ACLU to the hard-left reflects an even more dangerous and more general trend in the United States: the right is moving further right; the left is moving father left; and the center is shrinking. The center left is losing its influence in organizations like the ACLU, and the center right is losing its influence in conservative organizations,” he wrote.

He warned that America “has always suffered when extremes gain power.”

Standard
Uncategorized

Jeff Bezos workers demand more money, but shun Trump’s help

Jeff Bezos (video screenshot)

Jeff Bezos (video screenshot)

More than 400 employees at the Washington Post have signed an open letter urging their boss Jeff Bezos to pay them higher wages and benefits, but they’re not thrilled with support they’re receiving from President Trump, who again labeled the paper as “fake news.”

“All we are asking for is fairness for each and every employee who contributed to this company’s success: fair wages; fair benefits for retirement, family leave and health care; and a fair amount of job security,” read part of the letter to Bezos from the Post workers.

“The Post is not just any business venture. But even if it were – this would not be the way to show that you value your employees,” it continued.

“Please show the world that you not only can lead the way in creating wealth, but that you also know how to share it with the people who helped you create it.”

On Sunday, President Trump jumped into the mix, tweeting: “Washington Post employees want to go on strike because Bezos isn’t paying them enough. I think a really long strike would be a great idea. Employees would get more money and we would get rid of Fake News for an extended period of time! Is @WaPo a registered lobbyist?”

trump-bezos-washington-post-tweet-20180617-600-jpg

The employees were less than pleased by the president’s remarks.

“We welcome public support in our campaign to achieve a fair contract with the Washington Post,” they replied.

“However, we view President Trump’s tweet as an attack on us and our mission, and it is not helpful to our cause. Although we are pressing our case with our owner over workplace issues, we stand with Jeff Bezos and our fellow journalists in the fight to bring truth to light.”

President Trump aboard Air Force One (Official White House photo)

President Trump aboard Air Force One (Official White House photo)

Bezos purchased the Post for $250 million in 2013, and is also running the online retail giant Amazon.com.

Susan Knowles at the “Stand for Truth” blog took note of the matter, opining:

“How generous are you when you are the richest man in the world at a net worth of $130 billion? Not generous enough it seems.”

“Earlier this year, employees at an Amazon location near London said that they started ‘peeing in bottles’ because they were afraid they would be fired or disciplined if they took the time to traverse the 700,000 square feet office space to find one of two toilets on the ground floor of the four-story building. What’s the matter Bezos? You can’t afford to have more toilets installed?”

Knowles concluded: “While Bezos may be trying to buy happiness with his billions, it sure doesn’t appear as though he’s that concerned with the happiness of others.”

Follow Joe Kovacs on Twitter @JoeKovacsNews

Standard
Uncategorized

Comey under investigation for leaking Trump memos

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee June 18, 2018 (Video screenshot)

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee June 18, 2018 (Video screenshot)

Former FBI director James Comey is under investigation for mishandling classified information, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz revealed Monday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee

Horowitz, speaking to Congress for the first time since the release of his report on the DOJ’s and the FBI’s investigation of Hillary’s mishandling of classified information, said Comey is being investigated for the leaking of memos he wrote about his private meetings with President Trump. Comey has testified to Congress that he released the memos with the objective of triggering a special counsel investigation.

Horowitz said the inspector general’s office received a referral on the matter from the FBI.

“We are handling that referral and we will issue a report when the matter is complete, consistent with the law and rules that are — a report that’s consistent and takes those into account,” Horowitz said.

The inspector general also told the panel Monday that, according to testimony, Comey was concerned about his “survivability” as FBI director when he took certain steps during the 2016 election campaign regarding the Clinton probe.

“Do you think Mr. Comey, expecting Ms. Clinton to win the presidency, was thinking about his future as the FBI director?” asked Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

“I think that was a concern we had,” Horowitz said, stating the evidence was “even clearer” when Comey revealed on Oct. 28, 2016, the discovery on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner of new emails related to the probe then three days before the election announced they contained no new discoveries of classified information. Judicial Watch later found 18 classified emails were on the laptop, and the IG report found the email discovery should have been reported to Congress a month earlier.

“We have testimony indicating when [Comey] explained through his chief of staff why he was going to do what he did on October 28, he was concerned about his survivability,” Horowitz said.

As WND reported Thursday, the inspector general concluded Comey was “insubordinate” and “deviated” from FBI and Justice Department procedures in his oversight of the Clinton email investigation but did not find that he was motivated by political bias. However, the report also revealed a newly discovered Aug. 8, 2016, text exchange between the lead investigator in both the Clinton and Russia-collusion probes, Peter Strzok, showing he was determined to “stop” Trump from winning the election.

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Monday, Cornyn asked the inspector general if he thought that when Comey in his original draft used the term “grossly negligent” to describe Clinton’s actions — which are the words of the relevant criminal statute — and then changed it to “extremely careless,” if he was “writing toward a preordained result, or that this was a genuine process to think through what the evidence was and to try to apply the applicable law?”

“I think that would be hard to say and probably be speculation in terms of what he was thinking at the time,” Horowitz replied.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., noting the lead investigator’s determination to “stop” Trump, pointed out that if the aim was to ensure a Trump defeat, Clinton’s actions could not be deemed “grossly negligent.”

“What is the difference between ‘grossly negligent’ and ‘extremely careless’?” Graham asked Horowitz.

“Not much,” the inspector general replied.

Cornyn asked Horowitz if he was “shocked” to learn that Comey had a private gmail account at the same time he was investigating Clinton for using a private account as secretary of state.

“I have to say it surprised us that he would have been sending emails — although they were unclassified, but nevertheless using a gmail account,” he said.

‘These were not junior field agents’

Wray was put on the defensive about his argument at a news conference Thursday that the IG report found bias and “errors of judgment” pertaining to “only a small number” of bureau employees.

“Director Wray, I have to say that I was disappointed by your response last week to the inspector general’s report,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

“Lets remember who that small number of employees was: the director of the FBI, the deputy director, the leader of both the Clinton investigation and the Russia investigations,” said Hatch.

Along with Comey and Strzok, the senator was referring to former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

“These were not junior field agents,” Hatch emphasized. “These were senior agency officials. They were running two of the most important investigations in the bureau’s history. And they were insubordinate, grossly unprofessional in their communications, even untruthful.”

“Let’s not pretend this is a one-off problem,” he said. “There is a serious problem with the culture at FBI headquarters.”

 

 

 

‘Willingness’ to impact election

In his report, Horowitz calls the Strzok-Page texts “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.”

The “stop Trump” text was discovered only last month, according to the Fox News Channel’s Catherine Herridge.

The IG report said Comey harmed the law enforcement agencies’ image of impartiality.

“While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice,” Horowitz said in his summary.

The report is based on 18 months of review of more than 1.2 million documents and more than 100 interviews.

The significance of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to transmit classified information was underscored Thursday in a new memo from two Republican-led House committees and an internal FBI memo indicating “foreign actors” obtained access to some of Clinton’s emails.

Fox News obtained the memo prepared by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees. It lays out key interim findings ahead of a congressional hearing next week with Horowitz.

“Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails – including at least one email classified ‘Secret,’” the memo says.

Horowitz also discovered that as director, Comey used a personal Gmail account on numerous occasions to conduct FBI business, even though he had warned his employees they would be in “huge trouble” for doing the same.

And the IG found that numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the bureau, received perks from media.

The report identified employees with “no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters.”

Horowitz said he had “profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered our review.” The activities included “improperly receiving benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events.”

Standard
Uncategorized

Leftists apologize, pay up, for ‘hate’ labeling

hate

The Southern Poverty Law Center once demonized Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and inferred he is a “hater.”

James Hodgkinson, an SPLC fan, a short time later allegedly shot him down while he was practicing for a congressional baseball game.

And the SPLC long has attacked the Family Research Council in Washington as a “hate” group for its support for traditional marriage.

Based on that verbal barrage, and the SPLC’s identification of the FRC, a Christian organization that simply follows the Christian faith, Floyd Corkins arrived at the group’s office with a pack full of ammunition, a gun and the intent to kill as many people as he could.

Seems there are consequences for the words used by the liberal extremists, who once had to back down in the face of widespread public outrage after they labeled Dr. Ben Carson, one of the most admired men in the country, a “hater” for his faith views.

Now, it seems, there also are consequences for the SPLC.

The National Review reported Monday that the SPLC had reached a settlement with Islamic reformer Maajid Nawaz and his Quilliam Foundation.

The report said the SPLC wrongly included them on a list of “anti-Muslim extremists.”

“The SPLC announced Monday that it has agreed to pay Nawaz and Quilliam $3.375 million ‘to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism.’ The settlement was the result of a lawsuit Nawaz filed in April over his inclusion on the SPLC’s ‘Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,’” the report said.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center was wrong to include Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation in our Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Since we published the Field Guide, we have taken the time to do more research and have consulted with human rights advocates we respect,” said SPLC spokesman Richard Cohen. “We’ve found that Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have made valuable and important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism.

“Although we may have our differences with some of the positions that Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have taken, they are most certainly not anti-Muslim extremists. We would like to extend our sincerest apologies to Mr. Nawaz, Quilliam, and our readers for the error, and we wish Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam all the best.”

Get the Whistleblower magazine’s revelations about SPLC in “The Hate Racket,” the story of how one group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis – and rakes in millions doing it.

The SPLC had accused Nawaz of “savaging Islam,” in a diatribe similar to its attack on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “a Somali- and Muslim-born critic on the religion.”

She advocates against female genital mutilation, a torture she entured as a child.

“It’s a shame that it took impending litigation for the Southern Poverty Law Center to finally set the record straight and admit it was wrong all along,” Megan Meier, a partner at Clare Locke, which represented Nawaz, told National Review.

“Quilliam and Mr. Nawaz do admirable work, and we are honored to have restored their reputations and achieved this victory on their behalf.”

Jeremy Tedesco, the vice president of U.S. advocacy for the Alliance Defending Freedom, noted, “It’s appalling and offensive for the Southern Poverty Law Center to compare peaceful organizations which condemn violence and racism with violent and racist groups just because it disagrees with their views.

“That’s what SPLC did in the case of Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz, and that’s what it has done with ADF and numerous other organizations and individuals. This situation confirms once again what commentators across the political spectrum have being saying for decades: SPLC has become a far-left organization that brands its political opponents as ‘haters’ and ‘extremists’ and has lost all credibility as a civil rights watchdog,” he said.

“With eight wins in the last seven years at the U.S. Supreme Court and hundreds of victories for free speech at America’s public universities, ADF is one the nation’s most respected and successful legal advocates, working to preserve our fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience for people from all walks of life. SPLC’s sloppy mistakes have ruinous, real-world consequences for which they should not be excused,” Tedesco said.

WND has reported in recently weeks about the SPLC’s direct intervention in social media companies and action against conservatives or Christians there.

Several organizations, the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Religious Freedom Coalition, have been ejected from Amazon’s “Smile” promotional campaign because the SPLC doesn’t accept their right to hold beliefs different from the leftist group.

But its actions also have prompted other lawsuits by those who explain they have been damaged by the SPLC’s open hate campaign against them.

Among those is Liberty Counsel, which has been targeted by the SPLC, including through the SPLC’s promotions on the charity-focused GuideStar website.

While the SPLC famously battled the KKK many years ago, of late it has adopted the position that those individuals and groups that don’t agree with its pro-homosexual, pro-abortion agenda are “haters.”

It publicly labels them as such.

“SPLC is not a neutral watchdog organization,” said Michael Farris, ADF president. “Instead, it raises money by slandering people and organizations who disagree with its views. ADF is one of the nation’s most respected and successful Supreme Court advocates, working to preserve our fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience for people from all walks of life. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with Amazon representatives to explain why they shouldn’t exclude us from the Amazon Smile program.”

Another spectacular recent failure for the SPLC was an agreement by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission to pay a $100,000 penalty to lawyers for state Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, who was investigated at the insistence of SPLC for his criticism of same-sex marriage.

SPLC targeted remarks Parker made several years ago in a radio interview that made no mention of any current cases. Parker is seeking the office of chief justice for the court.

The JIC, instead of tossing the complaint as frivolous, conducted a year-long investigation.

But according to a settlement agreement approved in federal court, the state organization will pay $100,000 in legal fees for Parker’s lawyers at Liberty Counsel, and it will stop enforcing the speech-restricting judicial rules.

“The SPLC’s sinister plan has backfired spectacularly,” said Horatio Mihet, chief litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel. “The SPLC’s effort to muzzle Justice Parker has instead brought freedom of expression on critical public issues to all judges in Alabama. We are glad that the JIC has finally seen the proverbial writing on the wall and has abandoned its defense and enforcement of these unconstitutional laws.”

The state rules, once common around the country, but abandoned as unconstitutional in virtually every jurisdiction, gave the JIC the power to prevent any judge from commenting on any case or issue pending anywhere in the nation.

SPLC’s complaint against Parker eventually was dropped, but Parker filed a separate federal legal action against the state, and a judge refused to submit to state pressure to drop the case.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center wanted to silence Justice Parker and remove him from the Alabama Supreme Court. Their ill intent backfired, and now Justice Parker has won the right for all judges to speak on important legal issues,” said Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver.

Many organizations consider SPLC discredited. The federal government cut off cooperation with the organization.

Judicial Watch said a letter to Michael M. Hethmon, senior counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, and others, said the DOJ, under the leftist Barack Obama, even reprimanded SPLC in 2016 but it was “kept quiet at the agency’s request.”

“[It] involves the SPLC’s atrocious behavior during immigration court proceedings. Two groups that oppose illegal immigration, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), were the target of personal, baseless and below-the-belt attacks from SPLC attorneys during official immigration court proceedings. The SPLC filed a motion attacking and defaming the two respected nonprofits by describing them as ‘white supremacist,’ ‘eugenicist,’ ‘anti-Semitic,’ and ‘anti-Catholic.’ In its reprimand the DOJ says it is troubled by the conduct of SPLC lawyer Christopher Strawn and that his conduct ‘overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy and was unprofessional,’” the report said.

Commentator John Stossel, in a WND column, joined the effort to expose SPLC.

“SPLC once fought useful fights. They took on the Ku Klux Klan. But now they go after people on the right with whom they disagree,” he wrote. “They call the Family Research Council a hate group because it says gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children. That’s their belief. There is some evidence that supports it. Do they belong on a ‘hate map,’ like the Ku Klux Klan, because they believe that evidence and worry about it?

“I often disagree with the council, but calling them a hate group is unfair. In my YouTube video this week, the group’s vice president, Jerry Boykin, tells me, ‘I don’t hate gay people. And I know gay people, and I have worked with gay people.’”

Stossel noted that lambasting someone with a “hate group” label makes them a target, referring to the attack on the Family Research Council by Corkins.

http://content.jwplatform.com/libraries/pszPfxYQ.js

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_UfJlrAZI_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http:\/\/content.jwplatform.com\/feeds\/UfJlrAZI.json”,”ph”:2}
);

Stossel also noted SPLC smeared the Ruth Institute, “a Christian group that believes gays should no have an equal right to adopt children.”

The institute’s president, Jennifer Roback Morse, says they’re not “haters.”

“I like gay people. I have no problem with gay people. That’s not the issue. The issue is, what are we doing with kids and the definition of who counts as a parent,” she said.

For that, Stossel said, SPLC put the Ruth Institute on its “hate map.”

‘That led the institute’s credit card processor to stop working with them. In a letter to the institute, the processor company said that it had learned that the ‘Ruth Institute … promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse,’” he reported.

Stossel said: “SPLC is now a hate group itself. It’s a money-grabbing slander machine.”

See Stossel’s video report on SPLC:

http://content.jwplatform.com/libraries/pszPfxYQ.js

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_Sv75tLLF_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http:\/\/content.jwplatform.com\/feeds\/Sv75tLLF.json”,”ph”:2}
);

Last September, WND reported 47 conservative leaders urged members of the media across America to stop using “hit pieces” from SPLC.

The leaders included Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, Edwin Meese of the Heritage Foundation, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William Boykin of the Family Research Council, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and Michael Farris of the Alliance Defending Freedom, Frank Gaffney and Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy, Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, Frank Wright of D. James Kennedy Ministries, Scott Walter of the Capital Research Center, David Barton of WallBuilders, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center, Martin Mawyer of the Christian Action Network, Tim Wildmon and Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, and Joseph Farah, founder and CEO of WND.com

An announcement about the letter charged SPLC “has recklessly labeled dozens of mainstream conservative organizations as ‘hate groups.’”

Standard