Stop Referring To “Southern Poverty Law Center”

[bitter clinging swiftie]

the SPLC isnt a joke, because they arent funny, firstly(well funny lookin, maybe) and b, cuz they are a real threat to our liberty

Yes they are. They are at the forefront of stifling free speech, and simultaneously aid the efforts of seditious Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, ISNA, MSA, MAS, MPAC, etc

and I dont find any of that humorous....the government listens to them, which makes them a real threat.

 

[Syriusly]

Morris Dees is the founder of the SPLC. In the 80s, he helped the mother of a lynching victim sue the United Klans of America. The all white jury awarded her 7 million dollars.

Since the United Klans didn't have $7 million, she got possession of their headquarters in Alabama.

How fucking awesome is that? A black woman took the Klan's HQ!

Ever since, every racist in America has been gunning for the Jew guy at SPLC.

No wonder Protectionist hates the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

[Syriusly]

yes, how horrible that white supremacists have an opponent.

but as long as "fairus" says so.

see, this is why people like you are clueless and ignorant and uninformed.

Wanna take my ISLAMIZATION Quiz s.

LOL.......tell us again how Islam isn't a religion and how the First Amendment doesn't apply to Muslims.....

 

[Marion Morrison]

SPLC is a joke. So is Snopes.

yes, how horrible decency and facts are.

they wreck all of trump world's balloons.

Biased morons is more like it.

Allow me to sum up every jillian post ever: derpdederpdederpderpdederp

 

[LeftofLeft]

The easiest way to spot an invalid report (typical of MSM) is to see its use of the Southern Poverty Law Center. This laughingstock organization purports to list what it calls “hate groups”. Problem is, some things in life SHOULD be hated. Hate, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing (as SPLC commonly indicates).

One can get the feeling that if this were 1943, the SPLC woud crab about Americans hating Hitler and his Nazis, and Hirohito, and his Japanese imperialist invaders, all while they were killing our soldiers.

Now we have another world war. It is the international jihad (ISIS, al Qaeda, Taliban, Al Shabbab, Boko Harem, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) vs the sane world. But just say something that goes in the direction of protecting America from these genocidists, or their subversive counterpart, the Muslim Brotherhood, and SPLC will be ragging at you as a hate group or individual.

A little background on the SPLC can clear things up about this phony organization, which has nothing to do with either “poverty” or “law”, and is primarily about stuffing their pockets with donations from wary liberals, whom they scare to death with exaggeration reports.

Journalists who have no ideological or financial interest in skewing the outcome one way or the other have conducted examinations of the SPLC’s nearly 40-year history. While the political leanings of the publications and journalists who undertook several of the investigations would lead one to expect a favorable evaluation of the SPLC, quite the opposite was the case.

Articles published in The Nation, Harper’s, and even the SPLC’s hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser all make the same assertion: the SPLC exaggerates, and manipulates incidents of “hate” for the sole purpose of raising vast sums of money. The Nation. In response to a letter published in the February 26, 2001 edition of the magazine from Richard Cohen (the SPLC’s president and CEO) defending the SPLC’s activities, journalist JoAnn Wypijewski questioned what the organization does with its vast war chest: The center doesn’t devote all of its resources to any kind of fight. In 1999 it spent $2.4 million on litigation and $5.7 million on fundraising, meanwhile taking in more than $44 million—$27 million from fundraising, the rest from investments.

A few years ago the American Institute of Philanthropy gave the SPLC an F for ‘excessive’ reserves. On the subject of ‘hate groups,’ though, Cohen is almost comically disingenuous. No one has been more assiduous in inflating the profile of such groups than the center’s millionaire huckster Morris Dees, who in 1999 began a begging letter, ‘Dear Friend, The danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.’ Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the center’s web site will find only a handful of cases on such unlucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and ‘80s.

Why the organization continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt. The Nation’s opinion of the SPLC has only diminished with the passage of time. Syndicated columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote a scathing article entitled “King of the Hate Business,” for the April 29, 2009 edition of the magazine. In his piece, Cockburn lambasted the SPLC and its founder, Morris Dees. Noting the election of Barack Obama and solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Cockburn observed, “It’s also horrible news for people who raise money and make money selling the notion that there’s a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with legions of haters ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of Mein Kampf tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other.” Cockburn, like just about everyone else who has examined the SPLC’s record, noted the organization’s shameful record of hyping hate for profit.

What is the archsalesman of hatemongering, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, going to do now? Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with his fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of a hate-sodden America in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC. Harper’s. In the November 2000 edition, Washington editor Ken Silverstein published an exposé of the SPLC and its tactics and operational activities. Entitled “The Church of Morris Dees,” Silverstein concluded that the SPLC “spends most of its time—and money—on a relentless fundraising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate."

In a follow-up in March 2007, Silverstein noted that not much had changed since his 2000 article. Back in 2000, I wrote a story in Harper’s about the Southern Poverty Law Center of Montgomery, Alabama, whose stated mission is to combat disgusting yet mostly impotent groups like the Nazis and the KKK. What it does best, though, is to raise obscene amounts of money by hyping fears about the power of those groups; hence the SPLC has become the nation’s richest “civil rights” organization.

The Montgomery Advertiser, the city’s leading newspaper, began scrutinizing the SPLC, headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, as early as 1994. In 1995, the Pulitzer Board nominated the Advertiser’s eight-part series of investigative reports as a finalist for its distinguished Pulitzer Prize. In a May 1999 seminar at Harvard University’s Nieman Center, then managing editor Jim Tharpe described the SPLC’s efforts to intimidate his reporters during their investigation: “Our series was published in 1995 after three years of very brutal research under the threat of lawsuit the entire time.” 3 Like Harper’s and The Nation, the Advertiser’s investigation concluded that the SPLC was little more than a hugely successful fundraising operation that delivered little of what it promised to its donors. Tharpe stated: "The Center was building up a huge surplus. It was 50-something million at that time; it’s now approaching 100 million, but they’ve never spent more than 31 percent of the money they were bringing in on programs, and sometimes they spent as little as 18 percent. Most nonprofits spend about 75 percent on programs."

A sampling of their donors showed that they had no idea of the Center’s wealth. The charity watchdog groups, the few that are in existence, had consistently criticized the Center, even though nobody had reported that. By looking at 990s, what few financial records we did have available, we were able to corroborate much of that information, many of the allegations they had made, the fact that the Center didn’t spend very much of its money that it took in on programs, the fact that some of the top people at the Center were paid very high salaries, the fact that there weren’t minorities in management positions at the Center. But the Advertiser’s investigative reporters found something even more remarkable for an organization that prides itself on “exposing” racism in others.

The newspaper was able to corroborate institutional racism within the SPLC. Addressing Harvard’s Nieman Center, Tharpe stated: "There was a problem with black employees at what was the nation’s richest civil rights organization; there were no blacks in the top management positions. Twelve out of the 13 black current and former employees we contacted cited racism at the Center, which was a shocker to me. As of 1995, the Center had hired only two black attorneys in its entire history." None of these 3 publications had any obvious political or economic interest in discrediting the SPLC. In fact, Tharpe, whose newspaper was literally next door to the SPLC’s headquarters, noted, “They [SPLC officials] were friends with people at the paper; we hung out with them.” Nevertheless, all three, after closely examining the SPLC, independently arrived at the conclusion that the organization is not a credible or objective source of information.

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/SPLCGuide_Final.pdf?docID=3541

Who gave this organization ultimate license to determine who or what are hate groups?

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

The easiest way to spot an invalid report (typical of MSM) is to see its use of the Southern Poverty Law Center. This laughingstock organization purports to list what it calls “hate groups”. Problem is, some things in life SHOULD be hated. Hate, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing (as SPLC commonly indicates).

One can get the feeling that if this were 1943, the SPLC woud crab about Americans hating Hitler and his Nazis, and Hirohito, and his Japanese imperialist invaders, all while they were killing our soldiers.

Now we have another world war. It is the international jihad (ISIS, al Qaeda, Taliban, Al Shabbab, Boko Harem, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) vs the sane world. But just say something that goes in the direction of protecting America from these genocidists, or their subversive counterpart, the Muslim Brotherhood, and SPLC will be ragging at you as a hate group or individual.

A little background on the SPLC can clear things up about this phony organization, which has nothing to do with either “poverty” or “law”, and is primarily about stuffing their pockets with donations from wary liberals, whom they scare to death with exaggeration reports.

Journalists who have no ideological or financial interest in skewing the outcome one way or the other have conducted examinations of the SPLC’s nearly 40-year history. While the political leanings of the publications and journalists who undertook several of the investigations would lead one to expect a favorable evaluation of the SPLC, quite the opposite was the case.

Articles published in The Nation, Harper’s, and even the SPLC’s hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser all make the same assertion: the SPLC exaggerates, and manipulates incidents of “hate” for the sole purpose of raising vast sums of money. The Nation. In response to a letter published in the February 26, 2001 edition of the magazine from Richard Cohen (the SPLC’s president and CEO) defending the SPLC’s activities, journalist JoAnn Wypijewski questioned what the organization does with its vast war chest: The center doesn’t devote all of its resources to any kind of fight. In 1999 it spent $2.4 million on litigation and $5.7 million on fundraising, meanwhile taking in more than $44 million—$27 million from fundraising, the rest from investments.

A few years ago the American Institute of Philanthropy gave the SPLC an F for ‘excessive’ reserves. On the subject of ‘hate groups,’ though, Cohen is almost comically disingenuous. No one has been more assiduous in inflating the profile of such groups than the center’s millionaire huckster Morris Dees, who in 1999 began a begging letter, ‘Dear Friend, The danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.’ Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the center’s web site will find only a handful of cases on such unlucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and ‘80s.

Why the organization continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt. The Nation’s opinion of the SPLC has only diminished with the passage of time. Syndicated columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote a scathing article entitled “King of the Hate Business,” for the April 29, 2009 edition of the magazine. In his piece, Cockburn lambasted the SPLC and its founder, Morris Dees. Noting the election of Barack Obama and solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Cockburn observed, “It’s also horrible news for people who raise money and make money selling the notion that there’s a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with legions of haters ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of Mein Kampf tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other.” Cockburn, like just about everyone else who has examined the SPLC’s record, noted the organization’s shameful record of hyping hate for profit.

What is the archsalesman of hatemongering, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, going to do now? Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with his fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of a hate-sodden America in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC. Harper’s. In the November 2000 edition, Washington editor Ken Silverstein published an exposé of the SPLC and its tactics and operational activities. Entitled “The Church of Morris Dees,” Silverstein concluded that the SPLC “spends most of its time—and money—on a relentless fundraising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate."

In a follow-up in March 2007, Silverstein noted that not much had changed since his 2000 article. Back in 2000, I wrote a story in Harper’s about the Southern Poverty Law Center of Montgomery, Alabama, whose stated mission is to combat disgusting yet mostly impotent groups like the Nazis and the KKK. What it does best, though, is to raise obscene amounts of money by hyping fears about the power of those groups; hence the SPLC has become the nation’s richest “civil rights” organization.

The Montgomery Advertiser, the city’s leading newspaper, began scrutinizing the SPLC, headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, as early as 1994. In 1995, the Pulitzer Board nominated the Advertiser’s eight-part series of investigative reports as a finalist for its distinguished Pulitzer Prize. In a May 1999 seminar at Harvard University’s Nieman Center, then managing editor Jim Tharpe described the SPLC’s efforts to intimidate his reporters during their investigation: “Our series was published in 1995 after three years of very brutal research under the threat of lawsuit the entire time.” 3 Like Harper’s and The Nation, the Advertiser’s investigation concluded that the SPLC was little more than a hugely successful fundraising operation that delivered little of what it promised to its donors. Tharpe stated: "The Center was building up a huge surplus. It was 50-something million at that time; it’s now approaching 100 million, but they’ve never spent more than 31 percent of the money they were bringing in on programs, and sometimes they spent as little as 18 percent. Most nonprofits spend about 75 percent on programs."

A sampling of their donors showed that they had no idea of the Center’s wealth. The charity watchdog groups, the few that are in existence, had consistently criticized the Center, even though nobody had reported that. By looking at 990s, what few financial records we did have available, we were able to corroborate much of that information, many of the allegations they had made, the fact that the Center didn’t spend very much of its money that it took in on programs, the fact that some of the top people at the Center were paid very high salaries, the fact that there weren’t minorities in management positions at the Center. But the Advertiser’s investigative reporters found something even more remarkable for an organization that prides itself on “exposing” racism in others.

The newspaper was able to corroborate institutional racism within the SPLC. Addressing Harvard’s Nieman Center, Tharpe stated: "There was a problem with black employees at what was the nation’s richest civil rights organization; there were no blacks in the top management positions. Twelve out of the 13 black current and former employees we contacted cited racism at the Center, which was a shocker to me. As of 1995, the Center had hired only two black attorneys in its entire history." None of these 3 publications had any obvious political or economic interest in discrediting the SPLC. In fact, Tharpe, whose newspaper was literally next door to the SPLC’s headquarters, noted, “They [SPLC officials] were friends with people at the paper; we hung out with them.” Nevertheless, all three, after closely examining the SPLC, independently arrived at the conclusion that the organization is not a credible or objective source of information.

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/SPLCGuide_Final.pdf?docID=3541

Who gave this organization ultimate license to determine who or what are hate groups?

the same group of people who burned kids to death in a Texas church and shot Victoria Weaver in the head while she was holding her child

 

[Syriusly]

Why Protectionist is against the SPLC- example #1

Billy Ray Johnson
The SPLC brought a civil suit on behalf of Billy Ray Johnson, a black, mentally disabled man, who was severely beaten by four white males in Texas and left bleeding in a ditch, suffering permanent injuries. In 2007 Johnson was awarded $9 million in damages by a Linden, Texas jury.[57][58] At a criminal trial, the four men were convicted of assault and received sentences of 30 to 60 days in county jail.[59][60]

 

[Syriusly]

Why Protectionist is against the SPLC- example #2

mperial Klans of America
In November 2008, the SPLC's case against the Imperial Klans of America (IKA), the nation's second-largest Klan organization, went to trial in Meade County, Kentucky.[61] The SPLC had filed suit for damages in July 2007 on behalf of Jordan Gruver and his mother against the IKA in Kentucky. In July 2006, five Klan members went to the Meade County Fairgrounds in Brandenburg, Kentucky, "to hand out business cards and flyers advertising a 'white-only' IKA function." Two members of the Klan started calling Gruver, a 16-year-old boy of Panamanian descent, a "****".[62] Subsequently, the boy, (5 feet 3 inches (1.60 m) and weighing 150 pounds (68 kg)) was beaten and kicked by the Klansmen (one of whom was 6 feet 5 inches (1.96 m) and 300 pounds (140 kg)). As a result, the victim received "two cracked ribs, a broken left forearm, multiple cuts and bruises and jaw injuries requiring extensive dental repair."[62]

In a related criminal case in February 2007, Jarred Hensley and Andrew Watkins were sentenced to three years in prison for beating Gruver.[61] On November 14, 2008, an all-white jury of seven men and seven women awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages to the plaintiff against Ron Edwards, Imperial Wizard of the group, and Jarred Hensley, who participated in the attack.[63]

 

[jillian]

SPLC is a joke. So is Snopes.

yes, how horrible decency and facts are.

they wreck all of trump world's balloons.

Biased morons is more like it.

Allow me to sum up every jillian post ever: derpdederpdederpderpdederp

how is it biased to protect the rights of people who are victimized?

or was it not ok for the SPLC to sue for things like damages for lynchings:? discrimination? etc.

you don't seem like a horrible person, I've seen you post decent things. how can you ignore the fact that there are classes of people in this country who don't derive the benefits that are extended to us? not because of any deficit in them but because of some pretty disgusting traits in their fellow humans?

btw, full disclosure... I went to the school where the innocence project started. that program was important in defending the powerless, too.

 

[Marion Morrison]

SPLC is a joke. So is Snopes.

yes, how horrible decency and facts are.

they wreck all of trump world's balloons.

Biased morons is more like it.

Allow me to sum up every jillian post ever: derpdederpdederpderpdederp

how is it biased to protect the rights of people who are victimized?

or was it not ok for the SPLC to sue for things like damages for lynchings:? discrimination? etc.

you don't seem like a horrible person, I've seen you post decent things. how can you ignore the fact that there are classes of people in this country who don't derive the benefits that are extended to us? not because of any deficit in them but because of some pretty disgusting traits in their fellow humans?

btw, full disclosure... I went to the school where the innocence project started. that program was important in defending the powerless, too.

For the record: SPLC is bullshit, and every post you have ever made can be summed up by: "Derpdederp,dederpderpdederp."

 

[jillian]

SPLC is a joke. So is Snopes.

yes, how horrible decency and facts are.

they wreck all of trump world's balloons.

Biased morons is more like it.

Allow me to sum up every jillian post ever: derpdederpdederpderpdederp

how is it biased to protect the rights of people who are victimized?

or was it not ok for the SPLC to sue for things like damages for lynchings:? discrimination? etc.

you don't seem like a horrible person, I've seen you post decent things. how can you ignore the fact that there are classes of people in this country who don't derive the benefits that are extended to us? not because of any deficit in them but because of some pretty disgusting traits in their fellow humans?

btw, full disclosure... I went to the school where the innocence project started. that program was important in defending the powerless, too.

For the record: SPLC is bullshit, and every post you have ever made can be summed up by: "Derpdederp,dederpderpdederp."

never mind... my hope was you were actually interested in addressing this subject seriously.

the only reason not to respect the work of SPLC is if you think it's ok to victimize people of color. *shrug*

 

[WillMunny]

The SPLC is basically an institutionalized extension of the loathsome "I'm an oppressed victim" black crybaby shit I find so vomitous. My response to race-card-masturbating black butthurt is, "GOOD! I wish you were MORE oppressed."

 

[ptbw forever]

Morris Dees is the founder of the SPLC. In the 80s, he helped the mother of a lynching victim sue the United Klans of America. The all white jury awarded her 7 million dollars.

Since the United Klans didn't have $7 million, she got possession of their headquarters in Alabama.

How fucking awesome is that? A black woman took the Klan's HQ!

Ever since, every racist in America has been gunning for the Jew guy at SPLC.

The klan doesn't exist anymore, retard.

The SPLC is simply afraid of legal and open racism against white people ending in a supposedly "progressive" America.

 

[protectionist]

No wonder Protectionist hates the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Yup. All one need to is read the OP of this thread.

 

[protectionist]

LOL.......tell us again how Islam isn't a religion and how the First Amendment doesn't apply to Muslims.....

Islam isn't a religion, and thus, freedom of religion.is irrelevant to it.

 

[protectionist]

Who gave this organization ultimate license to determine who or what are hate groups?

The liberal, gooneybird, mainstream media.

 

[protectionist]

Why Protectionist is against the SPLC- example #1

Billy Ray Johnson
The SPLC brought a civil suit on behalf of Billy Ray Johnson, a black, mentally disabled man, who was severely beaten by four white males in Texas and left bleeding in a ditch, suffering permanent injuries. In 2007 Johnson was awarded $9 million in damages by a Linden, Texas jury.[57][58] At a criminal trial, the four men were convicted of assault and received sentences of 30 to 60 days in county jail.[59][60]

No matter what good they may do, that doesn't erase away their bad - like villainizing patriotic groups like Act For America, while granting acceptance to Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MSA, etc

THAT is why I am against Southern Pathetic Laughingstock Center.

 

[protectionist]

how is it biased to protect the rights of people who are victimized?

or was it not ok for the SPLC to sue for things like damages for lynchings:? discrimination? etc.

you don't seem like a horrible person, I've seen you post decent things. how can you ignore the fact that there are classes of people in this country who don't derive the benefits that are extended to us? not because of any deficit in them but because of some pretty disgusting traits in their fellow humans?

btw, full disclosure... I went to the school where the innocence project started. that program was important in defending the powerless, too.

The MOST (by far) discriminated against group in America (since 1961) is WHITES - by Affirmative Action (job hiring, job promotions, college admissions, college financial aid, business loans, etc).

When has SPLC ever protected the rights of Whites against this racial discrimination, in clear violation of US civil rights laws ?

 

[protectionist]

never mind... my hope was you were actually interested in addressing this subject seriously.

the only reason not to respect the work of SPLC is if you think it's ok to victimize people of color. *shrug*

Did you read the OP ? It sure doesn't look like it. You appear to still be ignorant of the facts.

 

[John Shaw]

The easiest way to spot an invalid report (typical of MSM) is to see its use of the Southern Poverty Law Center. This laughingstock organization purports to list what it calls “hate groups”. Problem is, some things in life SHOULD be hated. Hate, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing (as SPLC commonly indicates).

One can get the feeling that if this were 1943, the SPLC woud crab about Americans hating Hitler and his Nazis, and Hirohito, and his Japanese imperialist invaders, all while they were killing our soldiers.

Now we have another world war. It is the international jihad (ISIS, al Qaeda, Taliban, Al Shabbab, Boko Harem, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) vs the sane world. But just say something that goes in the direction of protecting America from these genocidists, or their subversive counterpart, the Muslim Brotherhood, and SPLC will be ragging at you as a hate group or individual.

A little background on the SPLC can clear things up about this phony organization, which has nothing to do with either “poverty” or “law”, and is primarily about stuffing their pockets with donations from wary liberals, whom they scare to death with exaggeration reports.

Journalists who have no ideological or financial interest in skewing the outcome one way or the other have conducted examinations of the SPLC’s nearly 40-year history. While the political leanings of the publications and journalists who undertook several of the investigations would lead one to expect a favorable evaluation of the SPLC, quite the opposite was the case.

Articles published in The Nation, Harper’s, and even the SPLC’s hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser all make the same assertion: the SPLC exaggerates, and manipulates incidents of “hate” for the sole purpose of raising vast sums of money. The Nation. In response to a letter published in the February 26, 2001 edition of the magazine from Richard Cohen (the SPLC’s president and CEO) defending the SPLC’s activities, journalist JoAnn Wypijewski questioned what the organization does with its vast war chest: The center doesn’t devote all of its resources to any kind of fight. In 1999 it spent $2.4 million on litigation and $5.7 million on fundraising, meanwhile taking in more than $44 million—$27 million from fundraising, the rest from investments.

A few years ago the American Institute of Philanthropy gave the SPLC an F for ‘excessive’ reserves. On the subject of ‘hate groups,’ though, Cohen is almost comically disingenuous. No one has been more assiduous in inflating the profile of such groups than the center’s millionaire huckster Morris Dees, who in 1999 began a begging letter, ‘Dear Friend, The danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past ten years.’ Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the center’s web site will find only a handful of cases on such unlucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and ‘80s.

Why the organization continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt. The Nation’s opinion of the SPLC has only diminished with the passage of time. Syndicated columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote a scathing article entitled “King of the Hate Business,” for the April 29, 2009 edition of the magazine. In his piece, Cockburn lambasted the SPLC and its founder, Morris Dees. Noting the election of Barack Obama and solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Cockburn observed, “It’s also horrible news for people who raise money and make money selling the notion that there’s a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with legions of haters ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of Mein Kampf tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other.” Cockburn, like just about everyone else who has examined the SPLC’s record, noted the organization’s shameful record of hyping hate for profit.

What is the archsalesman of hatemongering, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, going to do now? Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with his fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of a hate-sodden America in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC. Harper’s. In the November 2000 edition, Washington editor Ken Silverstein published an exposé of the SPLC and its tactics and operational activities. Entitled “The Church of Morris Dees,” Silverstein concluded that the SPLC “spends most of its time—and money—on a relentless fundraising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate."

In a follow-up in March 2007, Silverstein noted that not much had changed since his 2000 article. Back in 2000, I wrote a story in Harper’s about the Southern Poverty Law Center of Montgomery, Alabama, whose stated mission is to combat disgusting yet mostly impotent groups like the Nazis and the KKK. What it does best, though, is to raise obscene amounts of money by hyping fears about the power of those groups; hence the SPLC has become the nation’s richest “civil rights” organization.

The Montgomery Advertiser, the city’s leading newspaper, began scrutinizing the SPLC, headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, as early as 1994. In 1995, the Pulitzer Board nominated the Advertiser’s eight-part series of investigative reports as a finalist for its distinguished Pulitzer Prize. In a May 1999 seminar at Harvard University’s Nieman Center, then managing editor Jim Tharpe described the SPLC’s efforts to intimidate his reporters during their investigation: “Our series was published in 1995 after three years of very brutal research under the threat of lawsuit the entire time.” 3 Like Harper’s and The Nation, the Advertiser’s investigation concluded that the SPLC was little more than a hugely successful fundraising operation that delivered little of what it promised to its donors. Tharpe stated: "The Center was building up a huge surplus. It was 50-something million at that time; it’s now approaching 100 million, but they’ve never spent more than 31 percent of the money they were bringing in on programs, and sometimes they spent as little as 18 percent. Most nonprofits spend about 75 percent on programs."

A sampling of their donors showed that they had no idea of the Center’s wealth. The charity watchdog groups, the few that are in existence, had consistently criticized the Center, even though nobody had reported that. By looking at 990s, what few financial records we did have available, we were able to corroborate much of that information, many of the allegations they had made, the fact that the Center didn’t spend very much of its money that it took in on programs, the fact that some of the top people at the Center were paid very high salaries, the fact that there weren’t minorities in management positions at the Center. But the Advertiser’s investigative reporters found something even more remarkable for an organization that prides itself on “exposing” racism in others.

The newspaper was able to corroborate institutional racism within the SPLC. Addressing Harvard’s Nieman Center, Tharpe stated: "There was a problem with black employees at what was the nation’s richest civil rights organization; there were no blacks in the top management positions. Twelve out of the 13 black current and former employees we contacted cited racism at the Center, which was a shocker to me. As of 1995, the Center had hired only two black attorneys in its entire history." None of these 3 publications had any obvious political or economic interest in discrediting the SPLC. In fact, Tharpe, whose newspaper was literally next door to the SPLC’s headquarters, noted, “They [SPLC officials] were friends with people at the paper; we hung out with them.” Nevertheless, all three, after closely examining the SPLC, independently arrived at the conclusion that the organization is not a credible or objective source of information.

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/SPLCGuide_Final.pdf?docID=3541

yes, how horrible that white supremacists have an opponent.

but as long as "fairus" says so.

see, this is why people like you are clueless and ignorant and uninformed.

SPLC declared Maajid Nawaz a proponent of hate speech. That's all one needs to know about them. That man risks his life every day trying to fight a hopeless battle against hate, and they proclaim him to be the hateful one. Disgusting.