Restroom Slayer Could Sue Us If We Turned Him Away Today

Twenty one years ago, an 18-year-old man entered a women’s restroom at a business where I worked. If I had seen him enter the ladies’ room, I would have been expected to confront him and drive him out.

Nowadays, in certain jurisdictions, he could sue me and my employer for expelling him from a room where women and girls pull their panties down. He might be able to recruit government prosecutors to punish us, without hiring a lawyer of his own. And the policy of several faddish corporations is to leave such men to choose whichever restroom they prefer, no questions asked.

That man’s name is Jeremy Strohmeyer, and there is no reasonable prospect of him suing me in the future, because he is currently serving life without parole in a state penitentiary for the crimes he committed in that restroom on May 25, 1997.

He was preceded in the ladies’ room by seven-year-old Sherrice “Sherry” Iverson. She was mischievous and unsupervised, a handful. Her nearby father and teenage brother had no interest in following her around to protect her. Neither did anybody else. Strohmeyer was interested enough to follow her into the restroom, but not to protect her.

He raped her, strangled her in a stall and, when she nevertheless showed some signs of life, went back and snapped her neck. He stuffed her tiny body between the commode and the wall, and left her there for my co-worker to discover in the morning.

She would have been 28 this year, perhaps a young mother in the prime of life. Instead, there is no trace of her. Her father died within a few years of her murder. When a big-city newspaper published an article on the 20th anniversary of her killing, reporters couldn’t find her mother, and couldn’t find anybody who knew what became of her. She was surrounded by community organizers for a few years, stood in front of a few television cameras, then disappeared from the South Central Los Angeles ghetto in which she raised Sherry for seven years. And so there is nobody left to speak for Sherry, or about her.

Security personnel reconstructed the sequence of the crime later, based on video recorded by a surveillance camera mounted outside the ladies’ room. But there was an eyewitness inside, too. Strohmeyer’s traveling companion David Cash followed him into the ladies’ room and peered over a partition into the stall where Strohmeyer was muscling Sherry and stifling her screams by clenching her mouth.

When Strohmeyer seemed too preoccupied to engage in chitchat with Cash, he (Cash) left the restroom without intervening. He never notified security or police of the assault in progress. After Strohmeyer came out of the restroom and rejoined Cash, he told Cash he had killed the little girl. Cash never reported his friend to police.

Strohmeyer is spending the rest of his life in prison, but Cash never suffered any legal penalty for his indifference to the victimization of Sherry Iverson. Prosecutors said there was no law against what Cash failed to do. That has changed, but too late to prosecute him. Cash is apparently having a great life. He was accepted into Berkeley’s nuclear engineering program, graduated, and has had some very nice jobs in his native California, mostly in the public sector. He’ll be 40 next year.

There was considerable public outrage about the impunity of a man who casually shrugged off the horrific rape and murder of a child he could and should have protected. But how different are corporate executives and government officials who empower the potential Strohmeyers of 2018 enter women’s public restrooms at will? Like David Cash, they act on extravagant personal loyalty to friends and allies, and are utterly indifferent to the victimization of strangers. It was just Sherry Iverson’s tough luck that she lived outside Cash’s orbit of friendships, and it’s too bad for women and children that Target and Walgreen corporate executives and Liberal politicians are unmoved to protect them during their most vulnerable moments on company premises.

If a corporation wants to build lockable unisex restrooms for customers and staff, I have no firm opinion about that. I would rather not pay higher retail prices to fund the accommodation of sexual pathology, but at least it would protect women and girls from the menace of voyeurs and assailants. It’s a reasonable judgment call by management. That’s different from the reckless proposition of inviting men to share restrooms with women and girls, immunized against any intervention or questioning by security or retail staff.

“Sexual crimes are often crimes of opportunity,” wrote Christian activist Andy Parrish. “Allowing grown men in the girls bathroom increases the opportunity for sexual crimes. I choose my daughters’ safety over the convenience of shopping at Target.”

Over 1.4 million people have pledged to honor the American Family Association’s boycott against Target. But why do any Christians shop at Target or Walgreens anymore? It suggests that we have been compromised by materialism. In other words, we have subordinated our Christian values to our consumption, not vice versa. But it’s also because Liberals have been successful at framing the issue as a matter of compassion for pathetic transgenders.

When Christian activists published a list of 21 incidents in which male intruders victimized women and girls in public restrooms, Liberals replied that none of the 21 assailants and voyeurs were transgendered people. Even if we concede this is true, it would only vindicate the harmlessness of transgendered people in unprotected restrooms. It would not vindicate the safety of permitting adult or adolescent males to enter women’s and girls’ restrooms. The 21 incidents remain serious with or without absolutely autonomous transgenders circulating among the restrooms.

It may be true that transgenders are innocent of most violent attacks and voyeurism in ladies’ restrooms. But they and their Liberal allies are not innocent of making common cause with rapists and voyeurs in seeking restroom policies of mutual benefit. Of this, they are guilty.

My hat is off to Christian activist groups like One Million Moms and the American Family Association. But I don’t think U.S. consumer behavior is going to be shaped by inoffensive people following Marquess of Queensberry rules. Target and Walgreens and ilk need to face enormous photographs of young Sherry Iverson at their entrances every May 25. Bullhorns should greet stockholders as they arrive their annual meetings. Do you know how and when to request that your governor declare an annual Sherrice Iverson Day every May 25? If not, can you afford to hire a lawyer or a lobbyist to request it for you? It would be an opportunity to remember young Sherry, but also to remember Jeremy Strohmeyer and David Cash.

The depraved constituency for unprotected restrooms should have to earn it every year. An annual Sherry Iverson memorial would keep the issue fresh and correctly focused. The transgender restroom activists share David Cash’s indifference to unknown victims, and they should be identified as his disciples, year after year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqTdXOQmXrc

Whenever a municipal or state body takes up a proposal to give adult men free access to women’s restrooms, opponents should always refer to it as Strohmeyer’s Law. This would properly frame it as an issue of women’s and girls’ safety. Whenever officials or commentators are dismissive of safety concerns in deregulated women’s restrooms, they should be challenged to distinguish their position from David Cash’s position. What comes first for these people – their friendships and alliances with sexually confused men, or the protection of physically vulnerable women and girls?

Should men like Strohmeyer and Cash be allowed to enter your daughters’ restroom unchallenged? Liberals may hedge, but their policies most emphatically say yes.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The American Dream Is Dead

. . .Most of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top 0.1%. Inequality is now approaching the extreme level that prevailed prior to the Great Depression. . .

In fact, inequality is so high that a third of the population has no wealth at alland the top 0.1% owns as many assets as the bottom 90%.

Raw statistics are perfect tools for transmitting the truth of facts but they lack the emotional baggage that a story can deliver. There’s nothing better than tears, blood and immersive storytelling to mobilise people.

I’m unfortunately not very good at that, but I can still rephrase the statistics: if the US was a village of 1000 people, there’s 1 guy that has more money than 900 other villagers combined…

We can manipulate numbers and discuss hypotheses as much as we’d like: the reality is staggering. Research centers, in their vast majority and coming from all political backgrounds, have drawn the very same conclusion: the US is — by far — the most unequal society in the developed world. And things are getting worse every year. . .

Now a lot of us can cope with that if there are good chances of improving our situation. If my household’s finances are better than my parents’, the society I’m living in would have enhanced my well-being.

That’s actually one of the cornerstones of modern capitalism: inequalities are accepted as long as the possibility of betterment exists. We tolerate unfairness as long as there are good chances of improving our condition. (Read more from “The American Dream Is Dead” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

U2 Betrays Babies

Like a lot of generation Xers, I’m a huge U2 fan. They’re the closest thing my generation has to The Beatles. That’s why I was tremendously disappointed to see the popular band, which has Christian roots and whose lead singer even appeared on “Focus on the Family” a few years ago to share his faith, come out and urge voters in their native Ireland to repeal the nation’s pro-life law.

For a band that has been open about Christianity in song and deed, fighting for the downtrodden worldwide in numerous causes while infusing song lyrics with Christian themes and imagery over the years, it’s inexcusable for the band to urge Ireland to reject basic human rights for the most vulnerable among us — unborn children in the womb.

One of the band’s first hit songs, “Pride (In the Name of Love),” refers to Jesus Christ being “betrayed with a kiss.” Now the band has betrayed innocent children from their native country with a tweet in support of state-sponsored ritualistic killing. This has prompted some swift and harsh responses by their legions of pro-life fans who feel the band betrayed them as well.

Daniel Darling of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention put it this way: “After having poured out his voice for the vulnerable, [U2 frontman Bono] is turning his back on those precious souls who have no voice.”

Lest anyone think my associating the band with Christianity is another example of believers desperate for mainstream cultural acceptance so that they glom onto any celebrity who says something spiritual once, one website cited 79 specific Biblical/religious references in the band’s music catalogue. U2 also isn’t a case of some up-and-coming band whom people pinned some subtle religious hopes upon; the group just wrapped up the 30th anniversary tour of perhaps their greatest album, “The Joshua Tree,” in 2017.

Two of that album’s most famous songs are titled “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” and “Where the Streets Have No Name.” They have lyrics with explicit Scripture references like “I have spoken with the tongues of angels” (1 Corinthians 13:1) and been “beaten and blown by the wind” (James 1:6).

So this is not a band ignorant of the Word of God. Far from it. Given U2’s immense popularity as one of the most successful bands of all time, it could be argued the group has dropped more Bible verses than anyone not an explicit evangelist worldwide over the years. Therefore, I don’t think we should treat them as just another rock band that signs up for total depravity. We should treat them as Christ commands us to treat the brethren who have lost their way. I pray there is someone in their inner circle who can go to them. If not, perhaps clergy they hold themselves accountable to who will confront them.

I certainly haven’t wholly agreed with the band’s politics over the years, but this is an example of directly contradicting the Word of God they have used to inspire much of their best and most profitable music for decades. And since long before I became a believer, they shared the Scripture with me when I first fell in love with “The Joshua Tree” when I was 14 years old, now, as a believer, allow me to return the favor to them:

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. ~Proverbs 6:16-19

(For more from the author of “U2 Betrays Babies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Deep State Desperate, According to Clinton Pollster

The “deep state” is in a deep state of desperation. With little time left before the Justice Department inspector general’s report becomes public, and with special counsel Robert Mueller having failed to bring down Donald Trump after a year of trying, they know a reckoning is coming.

At this point, there is little doubt that the highest echelons of the FBI and the Justice Department broke their own rules to end the Hillary Clinton “matter,” but we can expect the inspector general to document what was done or, more pointedly, not done. It is hard to see how a year-long investigation of this won’t come down hard on former FBI Director James Comey and perhaps even former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who definitely wasn’t playing mahjong in a secret “no aides allowed” meeting with former President Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac.

With this report on the way and congressional investigators beginning to zero in on the lack of hard, verified evidence for starting the Trump probe, current and former intelligence and Justice Department officials are dumping everything they can think of to save their reputations.

But it is backfiring. They started by telling the story of Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat, as having remembered a bar conversation with George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. But how did the FBI know they should talk to him? That’s left out of their narrative. Downer’s signature appears on a $25 million contribution to the Clinton Foundation. You don’t need much imagination to figure that he was close with Clinton Foundation operatives who relayed information to the State Department, which then called the FBI to complete the loop. This wasn’t intelligence. It was likely opposition research from the start.

In no way would a fourth-hand report from a Maltese professor justify wholesale targeting of four or five members of the Trump campaign. It took Christopher Steele, with his funding concealed through false campaign filings, to be incredibly successful at creating a vast echo chamber around his unverified, fanciful dossier, bouncing it back and forth between the press and the FBI so it appeared that there were multiple sources all coming to the same conclusion. (Read more from “Deep State Desperate, According to Clinton Pollster” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Constitution Party Scores Incredible Victory in North Carolina; Focused on Wisconsin, Next

In a historic first, the Constitution Party effort to gain ballot access in North Carolina exceeded the required number of registered voter signatures to qualify for ballot access in 2018 and 2020. News of the Constitution Party’s success was picked up by major media, including US News and World Report, a leading newspaper in Raleigh, other papers, and radio.

Before North Carolina, the Constitution Party also added Hawaii to the states it has ballot access in. These recent efforts have brought more publicity to the national party than any other activity undertaken in an off-year election. Why? The public is starting to understand that the Constitution Party is serious about building a viable political party.

What North Carolina’s Constitution Party accomplished is nothing short of amazing. In all, volunteers turned into the county clerks a total of over 16,300 signatures. Of that number, 15,938 have been processed to-date and 12,537 have been determined as valid. That’s validity rate of 78.6%, a remarkable accomplishment. With its submission, Constitution Party has a significant cushion – well-over 600 signatures – beyond what state law requires. And all of this was accomplished in less than five months.

This is the first time ever that the Constitution Party has qualified for ballot access in North Carolina. When the Constitution Party’s efforts began this past December, most observers thought qualification would be impossible. They were wrong.

The Constitution Party is next focusing on Wisconsin. Although the party already has ballot access in that state, it must run at least one statewide candidate this year who then acquires at least one percent of the vote. There are at least two potential candidates who wish to run under the Constitution Party banner but, in order for them to run, each candidate must first collect the signatures of 2,000 Wisconsin residents who are at least 18 years old. Importantly, state law does not require the signatories to be registered voters, they simply must be Wisconsin residents.

This is where you can help. If you are as disgusted as we are with the corrupt, fundamentally broken two party system, then help the two Wisconsin Constitution Party candidates get on the ballot. Andrew Zuelke is seeking the office of State Treasurer and Terry Larson is seeking the office of Attorney General. Each of them must submit their 2,000 signatures no later than June 1, less than two weeks away.

Consequently, if you live in Wisconsin or have like-minded family or friends in that state, please have them contact Mr. Zukelke at [email protected] or call him at 920-748-7296, immediately.

Again, if you are sick and tired of the failed political system, do something to restore leadership to, and confidence in, the Republic. Establishing a viable third party with ballot access may be the only way to confront the Oligarchs who own most of the elected leaders of both major political parties. Wisconsin is key. But if 2,000 signatures are not turned in by the first of June, the Constitution Party will lose ballot access there. So please act immediately if you want to save this country; time is of the essence.

Why the FBI’s Raid on Michael Cohen Sets a Dangerous Precedent

. . .It has been long recognized that, for the right to counsel to have any value, clients must have absolute confidence in their ability to communicate confidentially with their lawyers, whether in person, by phone, or on email. That is what is known as the attorney-client privilege, and it is indispensable to the practice of law. After recent events, however, only a fool would place any trust in it.

Like most folks with day jobs, I do not generally follow the ins and outs of the special counsel investigation. But no attorney in America could possibly have missed last month’s news. The FBI, on referral from Special Counsel Robert Mueller, raided the office, home, and hotel room of Michael Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer, and hauled off “thousands if not millions” of pages of documents. In court filings, the feds further revealed that, for weeks prior to the search, they had been secretly reading Cohen’s emails as he was sending them.

Moreover, prosecutors apparently convinced a federal magistrate to issue this warrant on the flimsiest of pretenses—the so-called “crime-fraud exception” to the attorney-client privilege. If media reports are to be believed, Cohen is being investigated for one or more payoffs to old Donald Trump paramours, payments that, because they theoretically benefitted a candidate for president, could be deemed an unreported “in-kind” campaign contribution.

Folks my age and older will remember the ‘90s edition of Mueller, another budding Inspector Javert named Ken Starr. Starr was originally tasked with investigating a shady Clinton land deal but ended up stinging a White House intern into confessing an illicit relationship with the president. He then produced a salacious report that needlessly humiliated and traumatized a young woman, who still seems not to have fully recovered.

But even Starr never raided a law office. At least not that of a living lawyer. He did try to grab the privileged communications of a deceased one: Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster. At some point, Starr moved beyond the land deal and took to investigating President Clinton’s firing of the White House’s travel staff, a ridiculous endeavor if ever there were one. When the investigation began, Foster turned to the law firm of Swidler Berlin for legal advice. Nine days later, he took his own life, launching a decade’s worth of conspiracy theories. Starr then tried to subpoena Foster’s privileged communications. (Read more from “Why the FBI’s Raid on Michael Cohen Sets a Dangerous Precedent” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Goes off on Russia Probe, Drops Bomb on Mueller

By Reuters. A federal judge said Special Counsel Robert Mueller should not have “unfettered power” in probing ties between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, and accused Mueller of using criminal cases to pressure Trump’s allies to turn against him.

At a tense hearing in a federal court in Virginia on Friday, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III sharply questioned whether Mueller exceeded his authority in filing tax and bank fraud charges against Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

Ellis said the indictment appeared to be a way for Mueller to leverage Manafort into providing information about Trump . . .

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” the judge said. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead to Mr. Trump” and his eventual prosecution or impeachment.

“It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unfettered power to do whatever he wants,” Ellis, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing on Manafort’s motion to dismiss the Virginia charges. (Read more from “Judge Goes off on Russia Probe, Drops Bomb on Mueller” HERE)

___________________________________________________

Memo to Trump: Defy Mueller at Every Turn

By WND. If Donald Trump does not wish to collaborate in the destruction of his presidency, he will refuse to be questioned by the FBI, or by a grand jury, or by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his malevolent minions.

Should Mueller subpoena him, as he has threatened to do, Trump should ignore the subpoena and frame it for viewing in Trump Tower.

The goal of Mueller’s prosecutors is to take down Trump on the cheap. If they can get him behind closed doors and make him respond in detail to questions – to which they already know the answers – any misstep by Trump could be converted into a perjury charge . . .

For, after almost two years, their Russiagate investigation has produced no conclusive proof of the foundational charge – that Trump’s team colluded with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack and thieve the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC . . .

Trump’s lawyers should tell Mueller to wrap up his work, as Trump will not be testifying, no matter what subpoena he draws up, or what the courts say he must do. And if Congress threatens impeachment for defying a court order, Trump should tell them: Impeach me and be damned. (Read more from “Memo to Trump: Defy Mueller at Every Turn” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Southern Poverty Law Center: Institution of Weaponized Hate

Since the election of Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States, the leftist underground has surfaced in an unprecedented, full-throated effort to neutralize his historic victory. This underground includes violent communist, socialist and anarchist street thugs from groups like Refuse Fascism (the Revolutionary Communist Party), Antifa (Anarchists and Anarcho-syndicalists) and Black Lives Matter (Socialists). But it also includes many Democrat politicians, judges and bureaucrats at all levels of government, for example judges essentially governing from the bench with unconstitutional restraint orders, elected officials erecting sanctuary policies in direct defiance of the federal government, and a media willing to give them all rhetorical cover.

Running interference are groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who have joined the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in an unholy alliance to attack and silence the Left’s critics. This war on speech has been going on for a long time, but over the past 17 months has reached a fever pitch. While we see Islamic terrorist attacks on Western targets almost daily now, CAIR literally threatens venues, organizers and speakers who discuss the threats from Islamic terrorism and the Islamic supremacy doctrine of Shariah.

And while CAIR goes on the warpath, the SPLC assists by labeling individuals and groups “bigots,” “racists,” “xenophobes,” “Islamophobes” and “haters.” The SPLC can claim responsibility more than any other for popularizing the “hate” narrative, now ubiquitous in the popular press.

The SPLC claims to target “right-wing extremists,” “white supremacists,” and other varieties of “haters.” It publishes a “Hatewatch” list and an annual “Year in Hate” publication. It’s website includes a “Hate Map” showing where all these supposed “hate” groups are located.

But most of the SPLC’s targets are not hateful or even extreme. Last Spring, as GOP members of Congress practiced for a baseball game in Alexandria, Virginia, extreme leftist democrat James Hodgkinson attempted to gun them down. Rep. Steve Scalise almost died of his injuries and is still recovering. Hodgkinson, like so many radical leftists, was filled with irrational hate toward Republicans based on the provocations of the SPLC and other extreme Left smear shops like Media Matters and MoveOn.org.

The Family Research Council is a mainstream conservative Christian organization. As the focus of SPLC’s “hate” list, it inspired Floyd Corkins, a homosexual activist, to attempt a mass shooting at FRC’s headquarters in 2013. Corkins said he was motivated to “kill as many people as possible,” after he saw the SPLC’s list, which labeled FRC “anti-gay.” The FRC remains on the SPLC list.

Capital Research Center is a DC think tank focusing on non-profit organizations and foundations. Center President, Scott Walter, says, “Hate is the issue here. When you talk about hate groups, you’re talking about a group that is a threat because of its violent tendencies and racism. It’s an outrageous lie that some mainstream Christian group is a threat in terms of violence and racism.”

The SPLC recently added the Center for Immigration Studies, a highly-respected DC immigration think tank, to its list. CIS produces fact-based studies on problems with illegal immigration and our overall immigration system — which few argue is in need of major overhaul. But that fact is irrelevant to the SPLC.

For years the SPLC has been at war with any immigration policy group that advocates any restrictions on immigration at all. It does not discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants. They all deserve “justice” in the eyes of the SPLC.

SPLC even attacks the Remembrance Project, which advocates for victims of illegal alien crime. SPLC claims the Project inflates illegal alien crime statistics, a claim directly refuted by official government data. In so doing, the SPLC dishonors the hundreds of thousands of families impacted by the illegal alien crime epidemic, including tens of thousands killed.* It goes without saying that with controlled borders, many fewer would be victimized.

The SPLC’s targets do not all lean to the right either. Their sole sin seems to be that they disagree with the extreme Left or Islamic radicals. Maajid Nawaz, a moderate British Muslim reformer who was held as a political prisoner in Egypt, was stunned to learn he had been listed in SPLC’s 2016 Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists:

Through the counter-extremism organisation Quilliam that I founded, I have spent eight years defending my Muslim communities in Europe, Pakistan and beyond from the diktats of Islamist theocrats. I have also argued for the liberal reform of Islam today, from within… In a monumental failure of comprehension, the SPLC have conflated my challenge to Islamist theocracy among my fellow Muslims with somehow being “anti-Muslim.” The regressive left is now in the business of issuing fatwas against Muslim reformers.

Also included in the anti-Muslim list is Somali former Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an author and former member of the Dutch parliament who speaks out against Muslim suppression of women, especially the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation. In SPLC’s description, it even acknowledges that her friend, filmmaker Theo van Gogh, was murdered by a Muslim and her name was pinned to his body with a knife. But she’s the hater?

The SPLC never criticizes any organization of the Left, no matter how extreme. The SPLC even admits it, making plain that the “extremist” designation is related to the political positions staked out by those it labels. In an interview with NBC’s Chris Matthews, SPLC spokesman, Mark Potok, stated:

Well, let me say for starters that our—when we name groups “hate groups,” that has nothing to do with any allegation of criminality or some kind of measure of expected violence. It‘s purely about ideology.

At a public speaking event, Potok was even more pointed:

Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on … I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them…

In another notorious example of this bias, National Review columnist Charles Cooke confronted the SPLC about the violence of an Ohio Occupy Wall Street group, noting that, in the name of anarchy, it sought “the wholesale destruction of Cleveland, Ohio,” and “to blow up the Republican convention.” The SPLC representative responded, “They were Anarchists… We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”

The Language of Hate

Unlike most of its targets, the SPLC is the organization that genuinely expresses hate. In fact, hatred is its stock-in-trade. The SPLC’s goal is to identify and discredit, or even, in Potok’s words “completely destroy” those organizations and individuals it disagrees with. It does so by attempting to label them “racist,” “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “xenophobic,” etc. — name your phobe.

To reconcile the SPLC’s often contradictory, and usually false narratives, one must understand that its constant vilification of political enemies is entirely tactical. The terms “hater,” “bigot”, “racist,” and so forth are frequently misunderstood as a spontaneous, visceral reaction to policies the Left opposes. Those with more political savvy recognize it as an application of Saul Alinsky’s Rule #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

But it actually comes from a very specific tactic first articulated 100 years ago by Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Communist Party, who said:

We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.

In the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, individuals so vilified could face a death sentence. But the tactic was urged on party members everywhere, as suggested by this 1943 Soviet message broadcast to the world’s communist parties:

“Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic… constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become `fact’ in the public mind.”

Does that not sound like what is going on today? Does it not sound exactly like what the SPLC does?

Lenin and his Bolsheviks also believed silencing critics was essential to their cause. He said:

Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes is right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns.

The SPLC and Repressive Tolerance

The German Communist Herbert Marcuse further developed Lenin’s idea in his 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance.” Marcuse was one of the better known members of the so-called Frankfurt School. Founded in Frankfurt, Germany in 1923 as the Institute for Social Research, the school was disbanded when Hitler rose to power, and its professors – all Jewish Communists – fled. Most came to America. The Frankfurt School was reinstituted at Columbia University. Marcuse taught there before heading to Harvard, Brandeis — where he was fired for being too radical — and finally the University of California, San Diego.

Marcuse mentored Angela Davis, the black American Communist who later became involved with the Black Panthers, first at Brandeis, then at UC San Diego, which she attended specifically because he was there. Davis also attended the reestablished Frankfurt School in Germany at Marcuse’s suggestion, where she studied with other Frankfurt School scholars, and remained in touch with Marcuse throughout. Davis described Marcuse as having “a profound influence on my life and work.”

Marcuse and his fellow Frankfurt School Marxists created Critical Theory, an intellectual tool to deconstruct the West through constant criticism. Today it is commonly referred to as Cultural Marxism or Political Correctness, but few are aware of its radical and truly malevolent source. Echoing the Soviets, Frankfurt School teaching relentlessly accused Western societies of being “the world’s greatest repositories of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism, and Nazism.”

Our First Amendment allows for the free exchange of ideas, even radical ones. Marcuse claimed that despite this apparent “tolerance,” an oppressive imbalance exists in Western societies, which he said, “favors and fortifies the conservation of the status quo of inequality and discrimination.” To correct this imbalance, he followed Lenin’s lead, suggesting that leftists had a special right to lie, suppress truth, engage in violence and law-breaking to get their way:

Under the conditions prevailing in this country, tolerance does not, and cannot, fulfill the civilizing function attributed to it by the liberal protagonists of democracy, namely, protection of dissent… I believe that there is a ‘natural right’ of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate… If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one.

In the sphere of public debate this meant:

Not “equal” but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality… Given this situation, I suggested in “Repressive Tolerance” the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressors…

Marcuse further described the types of people who needed to have their freedom curtailed:

[It] would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.

In Marcuse’s formulation anyone who criticizes, for example, programs like social security or Medicaid, is by definition a racist, sexist, etc. and should have his/her voice and activities silenced. Do “aggressive policies” include anarchist violence? As with the SPLC, apparently not. Read what he says about education:

Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior–thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives.

Doesn’t this sound like what is happening in education today? However, leftist ideas have never been excluded from discussion in schools and colleges. To the contrary, the educational establishment has been marinating in extreme Left ideology for decades, and while tuition costs skyrocket, liberal arts students emerge from college with fewer and fewer skills to justify it.

The SPLC and Communists

Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance was read widely and his tactics readily adopted by the Left, including the SPLC, for which Marcuse’s formulation became its raison d’etre. Marcuse directly influenced the SPLC through his collaboration with SPLC co-founder and lifelong radical Socialist (and probable Communist), Julian Bond. They got to know each other through work on the National Conference for New Politics, an event Bond helped organize. Late Senator James Eastland described the NCNP as “working hand-in-glove with the Communist Party” to foment “revolution in the United States.” In 1976 Bond and Marcuse were also co-founders of the radical journal In These Times.

In 1965 Bond was vice-chairman of the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, a Communist Party USA front. In 1970, Bond joined the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee which ultimately became Democratic Socialists of America. He also co-founded the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, later led by black separatist Stokeley Carmichael and H. Rap Brown, who advocated guerrilla warfare in the U.S. Between 1998 and 2010, Bond was also chairman of the board of the NAACP.

Though elected to the Georgia legislature, the body refused to seat Bond three times because of his agitation against the Vietnam War. In response, Bond called on communist lawyer Leonard Boudin to represent him. Boudin’s other clients included the government of Fidel Castro, Soviet agent of influence Paul Robeson, and Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. Boudin’s daughter, Kathy, was a Weather Underground terrorist who served 25 years for her participation in the 1981 Brinks robbery that left two policemen and one Brinks guard dead. Kathy’s son, Chesa Boudin, was adopted by Weather Underground leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn while Kathy was in prison. Chesa has spent time in Venezuela, and consulted Communist leader Hugo Chavez while he was alive.

Bond and Marcuse also shared an interest in Marcuse’s protégé, Angela Davis. Davis was a member of Bond’s SNCC. When she was jailed for her alleged role in the Black Panther murder of a California Judge, she recruited attorney Howard Moore, Bond’s brother-in-law, who had also helped represent Bond in his battle to be seated with the Georgia legislature. In 1982, Davis and other members of the Communist Party USA founded the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, which Bond endorsed. Bond later wrote the foreword to Davis’ book, If They Come in the Morning: Voices of Resistance.

Psychological Terrorism

The SPLC has many other connections to communism and communists as well. Mark Potok and the SPLC have been featured numerous times in the Communist Party news magazine People’s World. Quoted in a 2009 article, Mark Potok charged that the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and Numbers USA — which he claimed were all the brainchild of “an extreme white nationalist and anti-immigrant culprit” — had caused the “demise of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007.” Was that a crime? Apparently so, according to Potok. In another article, Morris Dees was cited as warning the U.S. Congress that neo-Nazi groups were infiltrating the military, which then could be inadvertently training future would-be domestic terrorists.

In 2011, Potok authored a People’s World article, “Coming to Terms with the Confederacy,” in which he criticized events that recognize confederate history. When questioned by a reporter about the appropriateness of writing for the communists, Potok claimed ignorance of the article’s placement, saying instead that they sometimes wrote for an organization called Otherwords, which was responsible for article placement.

Otherwords, however is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, an extreme left Washington, DC think tank created with monies provided by Samuel Rubin, creator of Faberge perfumes and a Soviet COMINTERN (Communist International) agent.53 The SPLC is listed as an Otherwords Partner on its website.

Former SPLC board member James Rucker55 co-founded Color of Change in 2005 with self-described communist Van Jones. Before that, Rucker was grassroots organizing director at the Soros-funded leftwing activist group MoveOn.org.

In short, the SPLC has a sordid history of collaborating with, being inspired and even led by American Communists, and has employed Communist vilification techniques to intimidate and silence political opponents. It has caused SPLC targets to be discredited in the public eye, lose jobs, be refused speaking engagements and other economic damages, and has even inspired attempted mass murder. SPLC’s tactics are a type of psychological terrorism.

Conclusion

The SPLC, in collusion with an extreme Left, anti-American press, radical Islamists, and politicians motivated by ideology, money, fear, or some combination, has elevated defamatory smear tactics to high art. In so doing it has debased the political dialog to little more than infantile, elementary school, name-calling — but weaponized it to destroy its enemies. It The SPLC is the consummate definition of a hate group.

It is a national disgrace. But the most shameful aspect of its transparent behavior, is that the political class has given it legitimacy simply by refusing to call it what it is. And for that reason, it has become dangerous. Left unchallenged, its lies become truth, and encourage even more outrageous lies and disinformation. That in turn allows its practitioners to believe they can get away with anything. They flout laws and are becoming ever more aggressive and brutish in their oppression of political enemies. We see this today with the leftist brownshirts, who mask their identity then attack Trump supporters and others with chains, bats and mace. Will guns be next?

It is a predictable path, as witnessed too many times already in the past century, with the Nazi extermination of the Jews and communist mass murder that has killed more citizens in times of peace than have died in all the wars in history combined.

This path is charted in the 10 stages of genocide. Don’t laugh. We are currently between stages 3 and 4, where institutions like the SPLC seek to increasingly dehumanize their political foes:

At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group.”

Because:

Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.

And while conservatives are furiously attacked for the most circumspect criticism of the Left, at the same time we see leftists routinely advocating murder. Kathy Griffin’s infamous photo is only one example. This is the impulse of unrestrained, compulsive despots. They define themselves by their behavior.

The thugs of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Refuse Fascism, CAIR and all the others, are the ugly face. But behind them are the propaganda mills that give them their justification. More than any other, the SPLC is devoted to this single purpose. What happens if this unholy alliance gains unchallenged power? Unchallenged barbarity.

Some groups are finally hitting back. Coral Ridge Ministries is suing the SPLC for defamation, claiming that it falsely labeled Coral Ridge a “hate” group, simply because its beliefs on homosexuality and gay marriage are biblically based. “It’s ridiculous for the SPLC to falsely tag evangelical Christian ministries as ‘hate groups’ simply for upholding the 2,000-year-old Christian consensus on marriage and sexuality,” Ministries spokesman John Rabe said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an extreme Left, communist-inspired, if not communist led, influence operation designed to rationalize demonizing and silencing critics of the far Left’s agenda for America. This agenda is no less than fundamental transformation of our Constitutional Republic into a Soviet-style, one-party Socialist state. The SPLC’s tax-exempt status should be immediately revoked, its assets seized under RICO statutes and its leaders investigated for participating in a continuing criminal enterprise to subvert America.

Alfie Evans’ Death Illustrates the Monstrous Logic of the Welfare State

By The Federalist. Alfie Evans is dead. The 23-month-old boy died Saturday morning at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, England, five days after his life support was removed on orders from the United Kingdom’s High Court. There is no other way to understand the boy’s death than to say that the government of the United Kingdom decided he must die—against the wishes of his parents and against the pleas of the Vatican, the governments of Italy and Poland, and countless supporters throughout the world.

Together with the death of Charlie Gard last year, whom British authorities would not allow to be taken to the United States for an experimental treatment, Evans’ death seems to confirm British policy in such matters: children belong to the state, and when the state decides that they should die, they will die. . .

In that way, the boy’s death illustrates, in horrifying detail, the cold logic of the mature welfare state. The purpose of the welfare state is to exercise power over its subjects—and make no mistake, they are subjects, not citizens—and that’s it. Nothing more and nothing less.

That power is not exercised for anyone’s good, or for the good of the people at large, or even for some collective goal. It is exercised for its own sake. “Power is not a means; it is an end,” says O’Brien, the party official in George Orwell’s “1984,” as he tortures Winston. “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” . . .

Health and well-being are especially potent justifications for the welfare state’s use of power because they’re directly connected to the larger justification of the regime: welfare. The state wants you to be healthy, so it will set up a national health service. The state wants what is good for you, so it will compel you to participate in the national health service. The state is looking out for your best interests, even if you are not, so it will empower the national health service to make decisions for you and your children, against your will, if necessary. (Read more from “Alfie Evans’ Death Illustrates the Monstrous Logic of the Welfare State” HERE)

__________________________________________________

Alfie Evans Was Given 4 Drugs Just Before He Died: Report

By Life Site News. UK toddler Alfie Evans allegedly died within hours of receiving four different drugs from a nurse at Alder Hey hospital, Italian media is reporting. The information that Alfie was given four injections has also been obtained by LifeSiteNews from two different sources with connections to the Evans family.

Alfie Evans died in Liverpool’s Alder Hey children’s hospital on Saturday morning at 2:30 AM. According to Italian newspaper La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, a nurse entered the child’s cubicle after his father Tom had been called aside and gave him four drugs. A source close to the family told LifeSiteNews that these were injections that were administered to Alfie after Tom had been summoned for an unusual middle-of-the-night meeting with the hospital. The child died two hours later.

It remains unclear why the alleged injections were given. The Evans family did not respond to LifeSiteNews’ request for comment.

Medical advisors to LifeSiteNews said they could not understand why the child would be given four separate drugs. One or two drugs could be explained as an attempt to sedate the child or administer painkillers, if he were in distress. Four, however, seemed to them mysterious. They recommend that an independent toxicology report be performed. (Read more from “Alfie Evans Was Given 4 Drugs Just Before He Died: Report” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Devin Nunes Is a Badass

Devin Nunes, the eight-term Republican congressman from California, is taking on the world’s most powerful law enforcement and intelligence apparatus to uncover exactly what happened before and after the 2016 presidential election. Although Nunes is undoubtedly earning some formidable enemies, he seems undaunted—perhaps even emboldened—by the anti-Trump mob on the Left and the Right trying to discredit his investigation and destroy his reputation.

Nunes, 44, goes about his business in a way that only a politician who doesn’t owe his career to billionaire benefactors or a privileged pedigree can: He is fearless, well-informed, and slightly snarky. The descendant of Portuguese immigrants, Nunes has a background in agriculture (a profession that has been mocked by some of our well-fed betters) and got his start in local politics. Since he was first elected to represent his San Joaquin Valley district in 2002, he’s never won less than 60 percent of the vote. (Jim Geraghty has a solid profile of the congressman.)

As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes has been relentless in exposing how top officials in the Obama Administration corrupted our most trusted federal agencies in order to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign, hoping then to undermine his nascent presidency after he won. What is unfolding now will be the biggest political scandal in U.S. history and Nunes is a central figure in exposing it.

The hard-fought release of his memo in February—which was opposed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray but sanctioned by President Trump—gave the American public its first glimpse into how Obama’s DOJ secured a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page just days before the election.

Nunes revealed that James Comey’s FBI did not inform the court that the Christopher Steele dossier, the primary evidence cited on the application for the warrant, had been produced and funded by Trump’s rival campaign. Further, the FBI didn’t disclose that Steele had been terminated by the FBI for lying to federal officials prior to Election Day although the agency continued to use his work to reauthorize three more FISA warrants on Page. (The Senate Judiciary Committee referred Steele to the Justice Department back in January for a criminal investigation of charges that he misled FBI investigators.) (Read more from “Devin Nunes Is a Badass” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.