One of the most prominent groups advocating for stricter immigration went to court Wednesday to demand a judge order the Southern Poverty Law Center to stop labeling it a “hate group,” accusing the self-described watchdog of running an illegal racket to silence political opponents. The Center for Immigration Studies says the SPLC’s accusations that it is racist and anti-immigrant are wrong and have cost the nonprofit support and financial backing by scaring people away from doing business with the center. The center brought its challenge to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by filing a civil complaint under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act against SPLC President Richard Cohen and Heidi Beirich, who runs the group’s Hatewatch blog. Mark Krikorian, the Center for Immigration Studies executive director, says his organization doesn’t meet the SPLC’s definition of a hate group and the Alabama-based watchdog knows it but persists anyway — which he said was evidence of the racket. “SPLC and its leaders have every right to oppose our work on immigration, but they do not have the right to label us a hate group and suggest we are racists,” he said. “The Center for Immigration Studies is fighting back against the SPLC smear campaign and its attempt to stifle debate through intimidation and name-calling.” The Center for Immigration Studies is not the only group to protest the SPLC’s profligate use of the hate tag, but it appears to be the first to mount a challenge under RICO, a law that is usually associated with the FBI’s anti-mob efforts. The center says the SPLC defines hate groups as organizations whose official statements or activities “attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” Mr. Krikorian said that doesn’t define his group, whose motto is “pro immigrant, low immigration.” In practice, he said, that means the center makes the case for “fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.” The center says it doesn’t think its work amounts to attacks on people but rather attempts to raise policy questions. Beyond that, Mr. Krikorian said, the Supreme Court has held that being an immigrant is not an immutable characteristic, so maligning migrants wouldn’t qualify as hate anyway. The center’s work is widely cited in the press, including in The Washington Times. It issues awards for press coverage of immigration, including, in the past, to The Times. Its analysts are regularly called to testify before Congress and have been invited to meet with top security officials in the Obama and Trump administrations. The center’s work also is used by independent fact-checkers such as PolitiFact.com, which in 2017 fact-checked the SPLC’s hate designation. PolitiFact concluded that most of the evidence was guilt by association. Under the Trump administration, the center’s profile has grown. Some former staffers have been hired for government jobs, and analysts have conducted interviews with top Homeland Security Department officials in events broadcast on C-SPAN.
The SPLC is an extreme-liberal, agenda-driven, hypocritical, yet thoroughly discredited organization. It’s the go-to “expert” group for PBS/NPR, MSNBC, CNN and other liberal media outlets when they want to discuss “hate groups” and such. They’ll go after neo-Nazi groups and other such white supremacist groups…and rightfully so. BUT, they won’t even label the New Black Panthers as a “hate group.” Yeah.. wrap your brain around that one. Kudos to the Center for Immigration Studies for going after SLPC in court. It’s about time someone did. Excellent!!
Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska blasted left-wing groups for attacking Second Lady Karen Pence’s decision to resume her teaching career at a Christian school in Washington. Mrs. Pence was recently hired to teach art at a school that some critics said is homophobic because a document from the school asks students “not to participat[e] in, support or condone sexual immorality, homosexual activity or bisexual activity.” The Human Rights Campaign was one group to speak out, tweeting that the Pences “never miss an opportunity to show their public service only extends to some.” Sasse called the outrage “absurd” and said that Pence’s religious beliefs were under attack. “She doesn’t need a job, she’s doing this to love thy neighbor, through art,” Sasse said, calling the criticism a “fundamentally unamerican way to think.” Sasse added that a judge from his home state was subjected to similar scrutiny from Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Kamala Harris of California, who questioned — among other things — his membership in the Knights of Columbus. Judge Brian Buescher, who President Trump nominated to a federal judgeship in the Cornhusker State, is a devout Roman Catholic and member of the religion’s historic fraternal organization for men. Sasse said the Senate passed a resolution late Wednesday that rebuked Hirono and Harris: “The sense of the Senate that disqualifying a nominee to federal office on the basis of membership in the Knights of Columbus violates the Constitution of the United States,” the resolution read, according to the Washington Free Beacon.
To see that article, scroll down 1 article immediately below. Kudos to Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb) for standing up to the pc police and speech nazis who hate Catholics and Christians of all stripes. More politicians on BOTH sides of the political aisle should follow his fine example.
It was a rough day for author and CNN legal analyst Areva Martin on Tuesday. Martin accused Sirius XM radio and Fox Nation host David Webb of “white privilege” during a segment on a radio program before he broke the news. “Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped. I’m black,” Webb said. The embarrassing moment occurred during a discussion about experience being more important than race when determining whether or not someone is qualified for a particular job. “I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue, I considered my qualifications the issue,” Webb said. “That’s a whole, another long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of,” said Martin – who also hosts CBS’ “Face the Truth.” A dumbfounded Webb asked, “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?” Martin responded, “David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege.” The Fox Nation host then explained that he was actually black. “I stand corrected,” Martin said. Webb scolded Martin for running with an “assumption” and she then blamed her team for providing inaccurate information. “That’s actually insulting,” Webb said. “It is and I apologize,” Martin replied. “I was given wrong information.” Martin’s spokesperson declined a request for comment.
We’ll sorta, kinda..gice Areva the benefit of the doubt here for having “wrong info.” And, she DID apologize. Fair enough. But, she should probably fire the staffer(s) who provided the “wrong info.” That being said.. This illustrates the pitfalls of constantly playing the race card; something that CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the dominantly liberal mainstream media do on a daily basis. At some point it’s gonna backfire. Such was the case here. The ASSumption by the folks at CNN was that their conservative guest from Fox Nation MUST be a white male. So, they prepped for the show based on that ASSumption because it fit their extreme liberal racial template. DOH!!
Uncategorized and tagged Areva Martin, CNN, David Webb, fake news, liberal media, Media, political correctness, Race, Race Card, white privilege on .
January 15, 2019 2 Comments
A federal appeals court gave President Trump a win Friday in a case defending the administration’s policy limiting certain transgender people from serving in the military. The federal circuit court in D.C. ruled the lower court erred in issuing an injunction against the president’s policy, saying the plan wasn’t a “blanket transgender ban.” The court said former Security of Defense James Mattis’ plan had been developed with the help from military officials and medical professionals. It focused on limiting the service of transgender people who suffer from gender dysphoria and refuse to serve under their biological sex. “Although today’s decision is not a final determination on the merits, we must recognize that the Mattis Plan plausibly relies upon the ‘considered professional judgment’ of ‘appropriate military officials,’” the court ruled in an unsigned opinion. There are still other injunctions in place that had been issued by lower courts against the administration’s policy, so the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to step in. Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter formally lifted the ban on transgendered citizens serving openly in the U.S. military last year. Under that policy initiated by Mr. Carter, transgendered individuals would have been able to enlist into the services by July. Those plans came to a halt when Mr. Trump announced plans to ban all transgender citizens from enlisting and separating all transgender troops currently in uniform. The announcement came as Mr. Mattis was in the midst of a six-month review of the Obama-era policy. Since the August announcement, federal courts have ruled the White House’s ban as unconstitutional while the transgender ban policy continues to face other challenges in the judiciary. Transgendered recruits were allowed to enlist beginning Jan. 1 after being subjected to a slew of physical, psychological and medical requirements before being considered for military service, pending the release of the military’s recommendations to the White House. The new standards for transgendered enlistment include certification that a recruit has been deemed “clinically stable” in their preferred sex for 18 months, and do not suffer from marked stress or impairment tied to their selected gender during certain scenarios tied to military service. The first transgender recruit officially signed up for the U.S. military last February, little over a month since the White House’s call for a ban on service for those citizens. The issue has become a cultural touchstone between proponents of the ban who argue the military has been repeatedly subjected to progressive social engineering efforts.
Which is exactly what has been happening ever since then-President Bill Clinton issued his “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the mid-’90s. I was in the military then, and vividly remember the s_it storm that started…and it went downhill from there, especially under Obama. What so many liberal Dems (who have never served in the military), and their equally ignorant accomplices in the dominantly liberal mainstream media down want to accept is…that
nobody has a right to serve in the military. There is no constitutional right to serve. It’s a privilege. Secondly.. The military discriminates all the time, and has been doing so for generations. If you’re too tall, you can’t fly fighter jets. If you’re too fat, you can’t join. If you’re disabled and/or in a wheelchair, you can’t join. And, on and on.. The mission of the U.S. military is to WIN wars. Period! Anything that undermines that mission, including all of the politically correct social engineering bs imposed on it by Democrat presidents and lawmakers, puts our troops’ lives in jeopardy, and undermines our ability to WIN.
Uncategorized and tagged Courts, Defense, Department of Defense, Dept of Defense, DoD, legal, military, political correctness, Transgender Issues, Trump Administration on .
January 4, 2019
Leave a comment