The SPLC begins by exploiting an anti-Semitic attack and concludes by defending anti-Semitism.
After Frazier Glenn Cross, an anti-Semite who repeatedly quoted fanatical left-wing anti-Semite Max Blumenthal, launched an attack near a Jewish community center, the Southern Poverty Law Center rushed to cover up and lie on behalf of Blumenthal.
The SPLC claimed falsely that Blumenthal "does not despise Israel" when even the Forward, a left-wing paper, describes him calling for the ethnic cleansing of its Jewish population.
Now the SPLC, a profitable mail order enterprise operating under the guise of a civil rights group, exploited the very anti-Semitic attack it tried to cover up by attacking Jews.
The targets of its "White Homicide" intelligence report, even though the victims in the Cross case were also white, include David Horowitz, as the SPLC defaults to one of its favorite obsessions, Islamophobia.
What does any of this have to do with the Frazier Glenn Cross shootings? Nothing. The SPLC, as even most liberals know, is a profitable mail order operation that piggybacks on any incident to roll out its usual sloppy and poorly researched screeds. It is however particularly insulting that it is exploiting an anti-Semitic incident it lied about it... in order to attack Horowitz, myself and other Jews.
The Southern Poverty Law Center's White Homicide report is, true to form, a scattershot collection of drive by attacks. Its targets include Homicide star Richard Belzer (also Jewish) for spreading JFK conspiracy theories, Rush Limbaugh and former Saturday Night Live star Victoria Jackson.
The basis for the SPLC's attack on Horowitz was a discredited report from the Center for American Progress by Wajahat Ali, an Islamist who was on record as targeting Muslim reformers like Irshad Manji and Zuhdi Jasser with nasty slurs. Ali was on the board of the MSA, which his report and the SPLC attacks Horowitz for condemning.
Shouldn't the SPLC's own report rely on an independent source, rather than on an MSA board member?
Wajahat Ali had also written the left hates Muslims because they “have certain beliefs contradictory to radical feminist and gay ideologies.” That makes it all the more ironic that the SPLC has unthinkingly endorsed a report by an Islamist who holds exactly the kind of views that the SPLC claims that it condemns.
The SPLC attack on Horowitz repeatedly quotes Wajahat Ali as if he were a reliable source. The SPLC even solicits a quote from Wajahat Ali accusing Horowitz of being out to "inject poison into the pluralist racial and religious dynamic of America.”
That's funny because it's an exact description of what Ali's MSA has been doing. The SPLC is getting a quote on pluralism from an Islamist who is against feminism and gay rights.
But it's typical of the SPLC's sloppy research and inattention to detail that it accuses Horowitz of "leaning right" on gay rights while relying on claims from a Muslim homophobe.
Even more typically, the SPLC ignores the fact that Breivik has said that he is opposed to Robert Spencer even as it directs the same tired smear at him.
The final bizarre aspect of the article comes when Ryan Lenz, the author of that portion of the piece, defends a Muslim student who endorsed Hamas, a genocidal anti-Semitic terrorist group.
Referring to the encounter in this infamous video, Lenz attempts to convince viewers that they aren't seeing and hearing what they are seeing and hearing.
When the young woman asked Horowitz to clarify the connections he had been drawing between the Muslim Student Association on campus and radical terrorists, he instead asked the woman to denounce Hamas.
“For it, or against it?” he barked, demanding an answer. It was a trap.
While she would later claim she was thinking unclearly and intimidated, she bashfully replied, “For it.”
Horowitz nodded and smiled. It was a rhetorical trick— the kind Horowitz has perfected. If she supported Hamas, Horowitz argued, the Muslim Student Association to which she belonged was actually tied to a terrorist organization, as defined by the State Department.
Maybe I'm not as smart as Ryan Lenz, but what exactly is the trap here? And who "bashfully" endorses a terrorist group?
If Ryan Lenz were asked to condemn Nazi Germany, I imagine he could clearly say "For it" or "Against It". And if a Neo-Nazi leader on an SPLC tape says that he is for the Nazis, no one at the SPLC will claim that's a "trap" of some kind.
But it's typical that the Southern Poverty Law Center begins by exploiting an anti-Semitic attack and concludes by defending anti-Semitism.
The Hamas charter endorses the extermination of Jews. The SPLC's response is to whitewash support for Hamas, just as it whitewashed Max Blumenthal.