Posts Tagged ‘anti-gay’

SPLC — Anatomy of a Marketing Ploy

January 26, 2014

As mentioned in an previous post, the master fundraisers at the Southern Poverty Law Center have targeted the LGBT community in their latest marketing scheme. A little digging, very little digging, reveals just how flimsy this campaign really is from the get-go.

Visit the SPLC’s homepage and click on the “LGBT Rights” link on the left.

Click Image to enlarge

Click Image to enlarge

 

The LGBT Rights page makes the following claim: “Our work on LGBT issues spans decades.” Really?

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

 

If the SPLC has been fighting the good fight for the LGBT community “for decades,” why did they not even have an LGBT Rights page until 2011? Certainly there must be dozens of important LGBT cases to which the SPLC can point with pride.

Fortunately, the SPLC keeps a meticulous list of all of their court cases which one can access easily from their home page.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

 

They even provide a handy drop-down menu that sorts the cases by type.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Sorting by LGBT Rights returns a total of 8 cases, which seems rather skimpy for a civil rights law firm that has been in business for nearly 43 years. Scrolling down to the oldest case, Hoffburg v. Alexander, we do indeed find that this case goes all the way back to 1980. Hoffburg, it turns out, wasn’t even the SPLC’s own case. It was an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

 

Glancing up, however, we find that the next time the SPLC went to bat for the LGBT community was in 2011!

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Apparently, there were no cases of anti-LGBT civil rights violations worthy of the great institution’s note for 31 years!

In this case, the SPLC threatened to sue a high school if it didn’t allow two female students to march in a pep rally as the school’s Snow King and Queen. Fighting the good fight doesn’t come much harder than that.

Scrolling up the list, we find that it was only a few months after the pep rally case that the SPLC threatened to sue the same school district.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

The SPLC claims it was contesting a “gag policy” that prevented teachers from discussing LGBT issues in the classroom. The actual policy read that teachers could discuss LGBT issues at an age appropriate level, if the subject was germane to the class work and remained entirely neutral on the subject, neither endorsing or denigrating it.

Neutrality wasn’t good enough for the civil rights center, and so, having as much spare cash on hand as any other public school system facing a multimillion dollar law firm, Anoka-Hennepin simply gave in. Another hard fought legal battle that never went to court.

Higher up the list, we find Hill v. Public Advocate, the simple copyright infringement case of a New Jersey gay couple whose engagement photo was used in a Colorado political flier without their permission, or that of their photographer, who holds the copyright. None of the plaintiffs are indigent, the case is being handled by one of the premier intellectual property law firms in the business and the term “civil rights” never appears once in the complaint.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Soon after Hill, the SPLC jumped on another non-civil rights case, Ferguson v. JONAH. In this case, a group of gay Jewish men in New York City are suing an organization that promised to “cure” their homosexuality.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

This is a classic fraud suit, no different than thousands of similar suits filed every day, and the case is being brought forward by one of the best fraud law firms in NYC, none of the plaintiffs are poor and, once again, the term “civil rights” never appears once in the actual complaint.

If there are no civil rights issues in these otherwise cut-and-dried civil suits that are being handled by some of the best lawyers in the business, what exactly does the SPLC bring to the table?

In a word: Publicity.

In return for this free publicity, the SPLC’s master Public Relations Guru, Mark Potok, can claim that his outfit is out there fighting for gay rights.

The most recent case, as of this writing and described in a previous post, is a perfect example of Mr. Potok’s cynical marketing ploy.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

In this case, Mr. Potok and Co. are suing a poor, mostly Black junior high school where a 16-year old 8th grader named Destin Holmes claims she was verbally and mentally abused because she is a self-described lesbian.

Let’s be crystal clear here, nobody, in any of these cases, deserves to be subjected to any form of discrimination by anyone at any time or any place. Those of us who have been through junior high are still all too well aware of the juvenile stupidity that goes on in those institutions, by both the students and the staff, and that in no way explains or justifies it.

Obviously, this is a bad situation that demands immediate investigation, but is bringing a federal law suit against one of the poorest performing schools in one of the poorest performing states the best way to fix the system?

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Or is it little more than another classic Potok-ian publicity stunt?

Ironically, the complaint against Magnolia Junior High makes no mention of the fact that, while 78% of the student body is non-white, and both the principal and assistant principal, who have been named as defendants, are African American, Ms. Holmes is white.

Can anyone imagine the SPLC overlooking those facts if the races were reversed?

Again, no one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, but when you look the SPLC’s paltry LGBT cases, almost all of which only date back to 2011, how much bang are the donors getting for their donor bucks?

There was one major anti-gay organization that appeared to have flown below the SPLC’s radar for over a decade. In 2000, the Boy Scouts of America went to the U.S. Supreme court to protect their right to actively discriminate against gay Scouts and Scout Leaders (Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale), something it had done since its inception in 1910.

In 2002, the BSA issued a press release reaffirming its belief that “an avowed homosexual” lacked the “moral character” to be a Scout or Leader.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

The Southern Poverty Law center completely ignored this blatant anti-gay discrimination for over a decade. You will find no mention of the BSA’s discrimination on the SPLC’s web site until 2012, and, even then, that has to be possibly the most tepid response to a genuine “hate-group” in the SPLC’s entire history.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

SPLC co-founder Joe Levin was wheeled out of retirement to announce that “Twelve years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center stopped participating in the Montgomery, Ala., United Way Campaign because the organization chose to fund the Boy Scouts of America.”

That was it? One of the “largest youth-serving organizations in America,” whose primary mission is to build the characters and mold the minds of millions of American boys, actively discriminates against gay men and boys for a century, and the best the SPLC, that bastion of LGBT rights, can come up with is to stop donating to the United Way and say absolutely nothing about it for twelve years??

But wait… it gets even better… Joe Levin continues:

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

“DOESN’T INTEND TO ENCOURAGE BIGOTRY”??? Mr. Levin, the BSA took its case to the Supreme Court of the United States precisely to preserve its perceived right to discriminate. It doesn’t get any more intentional than the US Supreme Court!

Notice the softball language Mr. Levin uses when dancing around the hard facts: “Embraces anti-LGBT prejudice” and “Doesn’t intend to encourage bigotry.” Where is the SPLC’s patented “Hate Group” brand? The term never even appears in Mr. Levin’s pathetic apologia. Where was the SPLC’s multimillion dollar public relations machine for all those years? Can you imagine the pressure that could have been brought to bear against the BSA’s blatant discrimination?

[Update: On May 15, 2014, Joe Levin explained to MSNBC why the SPLC still doesn’t designate the Boy Scouts as a “hate group”:

“We don’t list the Boy Scouts (as a hate group,)” said Levin. “We only do that if we have a group that’s propagating known falsehoods associated with a particular person or group – in this case, the LGBT community. The Boy Scouts haven’t really done that.”

Of course not, Joe. Apparently, the BSA simply smeared all gays as immoral by accident.]

As it turns out, the BSA did reverse itself on its gay Scout policy effective Jan. 1, 2014. That decision was made based entirely on the protracted negative publicity campaign carried on by dozens of real LGBT support groups and major media outlets. The BSA’s Supreme Court decision still stands, but they finally gave in when public opinion turned on them and said that enough was enough. It was a movement in which the Southern Poverty Law Center’s role was precisely and exactly nothing.

And yet the SPLC has been fighting for LGBT rights “for decades,” right?

Well, not so much. Thanks to the magic of the Internet Archive’s “Wayback Machine,” anyone can wander back in time to view millions of websites as they appeared in the past, going back to the year 2000. It can be slow, and sometimes cantankerous, but it’s always free and a little patience can pay off big dividends.

In 2009, the SPLC issued a downloadable version of its latest “Hate Map” fundraising tool (Note: the “Hate Map” always reflects the previous calendar year):

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

A closer look at the icon key reveals an astonishing fact. There were no anti-LGBT “hate groups” as late as 2009. Not one.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

In fact, the first anti-LGBT “hate groups” do not appear on Mr. Potok’s all-encompassing “Hate Map” until 2011, forty years after the SPLC opened for business.

Furthermore, while the Hoffburg case appears chronologically on the latest version of the SPLC’s case docket list, right between Brown and Wilkins

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, we find Ms. Hoffburg’s case, the case that allows the SPLC to crow that its “work on LGBT issues spans decades” is conspicuously absent from the 2010 case docket!

2010 Case Docket

Click image to enlarge

Hoffburg never made the case docket list in more than 40 years because the SPLC didn’t even consider it worthwhile.

Once the white millionaires who run the SPLC decided to target the LGBT community though, Mr. Potok had to come up with something to show that they had not totally ignored the issue since opening shop in 1971. Hoffburg wasn’t much, but no one in the media will follow the simple steps outlined in this post, so no one would ever know the difference.

Well-meaning donors sent Mr. Potok more than $40 million donor dollars in 2012 because they believe him when he cries “hate group” and they believe him when he says how dedicated the SPLC has been to fighting anti-LGBT discrimination “for decades.” As usual, some simple, primary fact-checking of the SPLC’s own documents proves, once again, that Mr. Potok’s claims are meaningless.

Yet again, nobody should suffer discrimination due to their orientation, and any effort is better than none, but suing poor public school districts over pep rallies and yearbook pictures is pretty low-hanging fruit for an alleged “civil rights” law firm with nearly a quarter-billion dollars in cash on hand.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

If you want to contribute to a non-profit that has truly been in the fight against LGBT discrimination you need only do a little homework and ignore Mark Potok’s latest fundraising ploy.

SPLC — More LGBT Pandering

December 19, 2013

As the Southern Poverty Law Center’s traditional donor base grows older and fewer people buy into the SPLC’s perennial “hate group” hype, the fundraisers in Montgomery have set their sights on a younger, often-Progressive and often-affluent LGBT demographic.

Earlier this year, Watching the Watchdogs noted how the SPLC was involved in two ham-fisted publicity stunts featuring LGBT plaintiffs in New York and New Jersey.

One case was a simple copyright infringement case where a political group in Colorado used a gay couple’s engagement photo in its literature without permission from the couple or the photographer, who holds the copyright to the photo.

The other case involved former clients of counseling outfit that promised Jewish men that it could “cure” them of their homosexuality. Basically, a cut-and-dried malpractice suit.

In both cases, the plaintiffs were not indigent and the actual cases were being handled by two of the top copyright and malpractice law firms in the NYC area. The term “civil rights” does not appear in either complaint filed by the SPLC, which is not even licensed to practice law in either state.

All the SPLC brings to those cases is publicity, and they will spin that publicity into donor-gold by the hands of their long-time Public Relations guru, Mark Potok.

This week’s court filing continues the SPLC’s newest fundraising scheme, pandering to the LGBT community, as well as one its older favorites, suing impoverished school districts in the Deep South.

Pretty low-hanging fruit for one of the nation’s “leading civil rights organizations,” but the media, and therefore the donors, will lap it up, as usual.

On December 17, 2013, the SPLC filed a law suit against Magnolia Junior High and the Moss Point School District on behalf of Destin Holmes, a 17-year-old, self-described lesbian who claims she was bullied and harassed by students and staff at the school “on account of her gender expression and sexual orientation.”

Obviously, nobody deserves to be bullied or harassed for any reason in any setting, and just as obviously, nearly everybody DOES get bullied and harassed in the special corner of Hell known as junior high. That in no way makes Ms. Holmes’ ordeal any less painful, but it should be considered in order to keep the case in perspective.

Ms. Holmes states that she was harassed every day by students, faculty and even administrators, who would call her names like “dyke,” “dyke-ass freak” and “lesbian” and make comments about her clothing. It also did not help that Ms. Holmes was 15 or 16 when she began her 8th grade year, making her stand out even more.

Again, nobody should ever be bullied, but as junior high school fare goes, is this really a job for a multimillion-dollar law firm with more than a quarter-billion dollars in cash on-hand?

Magnolia Junior High School is typical of the kind of target the SPLC prefers to go after: Southern and impoverished.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Interestingly, the SPLC is making no mention of the fact that Ms. Holmes is white, while the majority of her classmates, the assistant principal and principal, LaJuna and Durand Payton, (both of whom are named in the complaint as making repeated homophobic slurs against Ms. Holmes), are black.

Click image to enlarge

Click image to enlarge

Can anyone seriously imagine the SPLC ignoring this fact if the races were reversed?

The law suit is already buzzing around the Blogosphere and is getting big press in the LGBT media, its intended audience. No doubt Mr. Potok is rubbing his hands in anticipation of yet another record donation year, one that will top the $40 million tax-free donor-dollars he ballyhooed last year.

Hopefully, the LGBT community will be savvy enough to figure out that it is being carefully targeted by the white millionaires who run the SPLC.

In the end, the school district will concede defeat. Scarce budget dollars will be reallocated to create sensitivity training for everyone and who knows, it may actually turn junior high students into rational human beings. It could happen.

Again, nobody should be bullied or harassed. We wish Ms. Holmes the best in her freshman year at high school, another teenage milestone that has never been known for its humanity.

The Mysterious Case of Charlie Rogers

August 10, 2012

*** UPDATE *** 3/01/2015 – While we had hoped that our previous update had brought closure to this sad case, recent news reports indicate that Ms. Rogers was re-arrested in February for breaking the terms of her probation.

***  UPDATE*** 4/22/13 – Charlie Rogers was sentenced to one week in jail, two years of probation and 250 hours of community service in response to her hate crime hoax.

Lancaster County Judge Gale Porkorny also ordered Rogers to submit to a comprehensive psychological exam and allow her probation officer access to her medical records.

“The evidence is overwhelming that Charlie Rogers’ narrative of July 22, 2012, was an incredible and outrageous lie the second it passed her lips,” Pokorny said.”

With any luck, this will close out this bizarre, senseless story.

*** UPDATE ***12/19/12 – On December 10, Ms. Rogers entered a plea of “no contest” in regard to charges of filing a false police report and was found guilty of same. Sentencing to follow.

*** UPDATE ***11/29/12 – Ms. Rogers has withdrawn her request for a change of venue, to the consternation of the judge in the case, who had already rescheduled court business to hear the request.

“We set aside an entire afternoon,” [Judge Gale Pokorny] said to Rogers’ attorney, Brett McArthur.

Hopefully, Ms. Rogers isn’t paying for Mr. McArthur’s legal advice.

*** UPDATE ***11/20/12 – Ms. Rogers has requested a change of venue for her upcoming trial, citing concerns that the publicity surrounding her case could taint possible jurors.

*** UPDATE ***11/14/12 – Ms. Rogers released a YouTube video restating her claims that her story is true and that Lincoln police botched the investigation of her case.

Ms. Rogers urges her viewers to “be responsible.”

*** UPDATE ***9/30/12 – According to a report in the Omaha World-Herald, Ms. Rogers is sticking to her story and has waived her right to a speedy trial. A judge has set a November court date to review the status of the case. Ms. Rogers is facing a single misdemeanor charge for allegedly filing a false police report. Stay tuned for details as they emerge.

*** UPDATE ***8/22/12

Well, as mentioned, there really is no good outcome for this story. The media is reporting that Charlie Rogers turned herself in to Lincoln police on Tuesday in response to warrant issued for her arrest. The charge is filing a false police report and could carry fines and up to a year in prison.

Police listed a number of details they discovered in the course of their investigation that included some very damning evidence:

  • Rogers was identified as buying the zip ties, cotton gloves and box cutter used in the alleged attack, by a clerk at Ace hardware.
  • Rogers sent a photo of a cross-shaped cut on her chest to a friend a few days before the reported attack.
  • Rogers announced that she was planning a dramatic incident on Facebook, a few days before the attack: “So maybe I am too idealistic, but I believe way deep inside me that we can make things better for everyone. I will be a catalyst. I will do what it takes. I will. Watch me.”
  • Rogers said that the three men forced their way into her home and beat her, but there was no evidence of any forced entry and there were no bruises on Ms. Rogers.
  • Rogers said the men cut slurs into her stomach, arms and legs and then rolled her over on her bed in order to cut the backs of her legs, but police found no blood on the bed and described the bedspread as “undisturbed.”
  • Police say that the cut marks on Rogers’ body were too symmetrical to have been made during a violent struggle, all the cuts were made in areas Ms. Rogers could reach herself.
  • Media reports repeated used the term “carved” to describe the cuts on Ms. Rogers’ body, but police called the cuts “superficial” and believe that Ms. Rogers either made them herself or allowed an accomplice to make them.
  • The DNA found inside the white gloves belongs to Ms. Rogers. Rogers claimed that the gloves were worn by the men during the attack but no trace of male DNA was found. Rogers also said she had never seen the gloves before.

There are no “winners” here, beyond the Hate Industry vigilantes who claimed this attack actually happened before the police had even begun their investigation. Almost none of the media outlets carrying the story included the descriptor “alleged” in their reporting, and thus enjoyed a burst of lurid interest during the slow summer months.

A Lincoln tattoo shop was offering $50 dollar “NO H8” tattoos, with ten dollars from each sale going to the victim. At the time that story was written more than 50 people had gone under the needle in support of Ms. Rogers.

Now that news of the arrest is public, all reports on the case include “alleged” and the frothing comments that accompanied the early stories (and pilloried anyone who expressed doubts about the incident as a “homophobe” and “hater”) are now drinking deeply from the cognitive dissonance Kool-Aid.

“Well, if this is a hoax, she must have felt she had no other choice.”

“Things like this happen to LGBT people all the time, so she didn’t really do anything wrong.”

The coalition of Nebraska Gay Rights groups that originally called for the most severe charges possible to be brought against the three white monsters who committed this crime are saying that now is not the time to concentrate on the actions of any one person.

Again, it is important to recognize that Ms. Rogers has only been charged with a misdemeanor, and that she is presumed innocent until after she has her day in court.

***************************************************

[Original post — 8/10/12]

Several weeks ago, a very disturbing news story broke reporting a violent attack on a lesbian in Lincoln, Nebraska. The way the media has reported this story, the wording of these reports and certain details and conclusions make this a story of interest to those of us who study hate in America and the Hate Industry in particular.

According to police reports, in the early morning hours of July 22, three men wearing ski masks allegedly entered the home of the 33 year old woman, pulled her from her bed, stripped her naked and bound her hands and feet with zip ties. The men then allegedly proceeded to “carve” anti-gay slurs into the woman’s arms and stomach, spray-paint the same slurs on her basement walls and then poured a small amount of gasoline on her kitchen floor, which they ignited.

Because the woman was allegedly attacked because of her sexual orientation, Lincoln police are reportedly investigating the incident as a possible hate crime.

NOTE: All violent crimes are attacks on the safety and liberties of individuals, and hate crimes are among the most serious, and so it is the job of law enforcement officials to investigate all claims thoroughly. As of this writing the Lincoln report is still being investigated by the Lincoln police and the FBI and no definite conclusions have yet been reached.

And while the benefit of the doubt always should go to the person reporting such incidents, the law enforcement agencies investigating this report have not ruled out the possibility of a false report, or hoax, as is the standard operating procedure in all criminal investigations.

As Will Rogers used to say, “All I know is what I read in the papers,” and in the 21st century news appears online simultaneously and in addition to being printed in the newspapers. All we really know is what has been reported on the Internet and in the Blogosphere and it’s these reports that warrant closer inspection.

One of the most striking features in the news reports of this case is the lack of the use of the standard qualifier “alleged” when describing events that have yet to be proven. You might expect this from bloggers, who are not professionally trained and some tend to have partisan views, but so-called Mainstream Media outlets ought to know better.

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the consensus of the Associated Press and New York Times style books is that the modifier “alleged” should never be applied to an accused person, but to an event that has yet to be proven to have taken place.

The Lincoln Journal Star made no such qualifying comments in its early reporting of the story:

Hundreds of people gathered with rainbow flags and candles outside the Capitol for a nighttime vigil sparked by a woman’s account of a violent, hate-fueled attack that spread rapidly over the Internet on Sunday.

The paper’s account gives the impression that events happened as described and that the motive was undoubtedly anti-gay hatred. The paper also left no room for the very plausible possibility that the report was false.

Omaha TV station WOWT responded likewise:

Police are looking for three men who bound and beat a woman, before setting her home on fire. It’s an attack that many in Lincoln are calling a hate crime; they say it was because of the victim’s sexual orientation.

It wasn’t until several days later, when the Lincoln police announced that they would be looking into the possibility of a false report, as a matter of course, that the media began to qualify its statements on the story, and even then it referred to the woman as “the victim of an alleged attack.”

Well, as the CJR and the aforementioned style guides point out, calling her an alleged victim is inaccurate, but can one be a victim of an attack that has yet to be proven? The choice of language leads the consumer to foregone conclusions. The media is leading the witness, your Honor.

Several stories describe the three men as “possibly white,” but otherwise police have no leads on them. It’s definitely unusual for the media to release such sketchy details regarding race, and it can be legitimately questioned if they would have done so if the perps had been of any other racial group. How many times have you read of police seeking a dangerous killer or rapist on the loose only to be given the useless information that “the suspect was last seen in blue pants and a dark cap”?

Another curious gaffe in the reporting of this story was that, while the woman requested anonymity and went into hiding after making her report to police, the local media gave all kinds of reckless information about the woman’s identity.

While WOWT had the common sense to limit its report on the location of the alleged attack as “the 1000 block of South 22nd Street,” the folks at the Journal Star blurted out that “officers were called to 22nd and E streets.”

If the woman was indeed in fear for her safety, thanks to the Journal Star, any boob with access to Google Maps could pinpoint her neighborhood and even obtain street view photos of the homes there.

Click image to enlarge

CNN went one better by reporting the name of the next-door neighbor to whom the bleeding, naked woman turned to for help after the alleged incident.

After the attack, the woman made her way to the home of a neighbor, Linda Rappl…

Other sources identified several close friends of the woman by name. So much for protecting the woman’s identity, or those who would help her. Doesn’t this kind of information invite copy-cat attacks on the woman and retribution attacks on her friends?

As it turns out, once the word came out that the police were investigating the false report angle, the woman came forward and revealed her identity as Charlie Rogers, a former women’s basketball star for the University of Nebraska.

Click image to enlarge

It’s at this point that other aspects of the story become mysterious.

According to media reports, the three perpetrators “barged in,” “burst in,” or even “broke down the door,” yet police could find no evidence of a forced entry.

The woman’s hands and ankles were bound with zip ties, which would be a fast way of doing it for three thugs in a hurry. It’s also a fairly easy way for Ms. Rogers to do it herself, even binding her own hands behind her back.

Police report that anti-lesbian slurs were found cut into the skin on Ms. Rogers arms and stomach, although the word “carved” is the most common descriptor. While “carve” is a relatively ambiguous term, it tends to imply cutting that is somewhat deeper than, say, scratches.

Carved implies that the flesh was cut through to the muscle, or possibly through the muscle itself. To date, no descriptions of the weapon have been given, or photos of the wounds, but there is evidence to suggest that carved is a bit inaccurate.

For one thing, as the photo of Ms. Rogers above shows, (as does the KETV interview footage), she’s sitting on a tall chair or stool and not showing any signs of discomfort for one who may have received deep cuts and possible stitches on her stomach and arms just days earlier.

Another factor that seems strange is that while Ms. Rogers claims she was stripped naked during the attack, and the “carving” of the slurs was seemingly meant to disfigure her, the perpetrators chose areas that were easily covered by clothing, rather than, say, her face, and did not disfigure her chest area, which seems incongruous with the nature of the attack.

Ms. Rogers’ arms and stomach are also areas she could easily reach herself. Her neighbor, Ms. Rappl, also states that Ms. Rogers was bleeding from the forehead after the incident, but close-ups of Ms. Rogers’ face show no scars or cuts on her forehead.

The key anti-lesbian slur referred to in the story is “dyke,” which can be a disparaging name for lesbians, but not necessarily between lesbians, just as certain unutterable racial slurs are frequently exchanged between members of certain groups.

The term “dyke” also turns up in the next phase of the attack, where at least one of the perpetrators spray painted the term and other remarks on the wall of her basementGiven the violent nature of the described incidents, wouldn’t the perpetrators choose a far more visible site for their hate slurs? Say, the living room walls or even an outside wall?

It just seems unusual that three men would commit to undertaking this crime, which almost certainly would carry the most severe penalties if they were caught, only to hide their dirty work where no one would see it.

Hopefully, police officials are also considering the actual writing itself to see if there are similarities between the lettering and the handwriting of known criminals, or even of Ms. Rogers herself.

And the final mystery is the use of a small amount of gasoline to start a fire in Ms. Rogers’ kitchen. Allegedly, the gasoline was poured on the kitchen floor and soon burned itself out, doing about $200 dollars in damage.

Why bother? For a lousy five bucks the perps could have pumped enough gas into an everyday, ordinary lawnmower gas can to set the entire house on fire, while attracting exactly zero attention at the gas pumps.

And why just a piddling puddle in the middle of the floor? If the intent was to burn the house down, and presumably kill Ms. Rogers in the process, why not pour it on the bed, the couch or anything that would maintain and spread the flames? Why not, God forbid, on the victim herself?

As hate crimes go, this one seems to have been designed to maximize outrage while causing the victim a minimum of discomfort in the aftermath. It certainly seems like an awful lot of risk for such little actual damage to Ms. Rogers and her property.

So what is the aftermath of this story? As the numerous media accounts cited show there was a large anti-hate rally held on the grounds of the state capitol building in Lincoln, with hundreds of people attending.

Several fundraising efforts have been made on behalf of Ms. Rogers, including dozens of people who got “NO H8” tattoos because a portion of the proceeds would go to the victim. Ms. Rogers says she will not accept a dime until police definitely rule out the possibility of a hoax.

And of course, all of the usual non-profits and special interest groups, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, jumped to denounce this crime before police have even determined that there was a crime committed. The legal brains at the SPLC did at least have the common sense to go back and add a proviso to their earlier statements, however:

Editor’s Note: Police subsequently said they had not ruled out the possibility that the attack was staged.

Perhaps even the SPLC has learned that, while hate crimes are all too real, there are some who make false claims to further their own agendas, as seen here, here, here and here.

Sadly, it’s because of craven hoaxers like these that there is a need to examine Ms. Rogers’ story. Several bloggers have performed statement analyses on Ms. Rogers’ interview statements and found them suspicious, though the accuracy of these analysts is anyone’s guess. Until the final police report comes out we have no way of knowing exactly what happened that night.

All we do know is that a crime was committed. Now it’s up to the police to determine who the victim or victims turn out to be.

SPLC — Selective Outrage – Part 2

December 4, 2009

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, 2009 was the Year the Militias Returned, angered by a tanking economy, illegal immigration and a black president. (In case you missed it, 2008 was the year that “racist skinheads” were going to take over America, and in 2007 it was the Klan, yet again).

As part of the ongoing fear campaign that has frightened hundreds of millions of dollars out of its well-meaning, mostly elderly donor base, the SPLC began circulating fund-raising press releases stating that a 22-year-old man in Pittsburgh “…who was afraid of Jews and gun confiscations killed three police officers.”

The fact that the mentally unbalanced shooter was not part of any “militia” and none of the police officers were Jewish makes no difference in the whimsical world of SPLC statistics. It’s simply more proof that the “militias” are back and you’ll find mention of the senseless murders on the SPLC web site and much of its recent fund-raising propaganda.

On Sunday, November 29, 2009, another unbalanced individual gunned down four police officers near Seattle. You won’t find the name of the accused shooter, Maurice Clemmons, on the SPLC website, or in any of their conspiracy theory press releases. Why?

Clemmons

In September, 2009, the SPLC started playing up the senseless murder of Ecuadorian immigrant Marcelo Lucero in its press releases. Lucero was attacked by a group of teenaged thugs who were looking for a Hispanic to assault.

Google the terms “SPLC” and “Lucero” together and you’ll find thousands of stories documenting a string of attacks on Hispanics in the NYC area.

Lucero was murdered on Long Island in November of 2008. Less than a month later, in Brooklyn, NY, two other Ecuadorian immigrants, brothers Jose and Romel Suchuzhanay, were also attacked by thugs who beat Jose with a baseball bat. The thugs attacked the Suchuzhanays because they were Hispanic, and, because the brothers were walking arm in arm, the perps mistakenly presumed them to be gay. Jose died in the hospital a few days later.

You won’t find anything on the death of Jose Suchuzhanay on the SPLC website, however, or the thugs,  Phoenix and Scott, who murdered him, even though this is a Hispanic/Gay hate crime two-fer. Why?

Also in September of 2009, threatening notes were found in a Hispanic church in Patchogue, Long Island, the epicenter of the SPLC’s anti-Hispanic hate crime crusade. Because the notes were written in broken Spanish, it was immediately assumed that the perpetrator was White.

Police soon arrested Christian Mungia Garcia, a member of that church, who speaks fluent Spanish, and charged him with the crime. Even though Garcia deliberately altered his writing to implicate a non-Hispanic in the crime, you won’t find a single word about him or the church on the SPLC website.

Garcia

And on December 3, 2009, a “White supremacist” received three years probation and 150 hours of community service duty for sending “…racist death threats to black college students” in New Orleans through Facebook.

Although Mr. Hart claimed that he was “angry at the election of Barack Obama” in his Facebook posts, a keystone of the SPLC’s “militia” campaign, you won’t find word one about the incident on their web site or in any of their fund-raising propaganda.

Dryon Hart

When is a “hate crime” not a “hate crime” by SPLC standards? When the perps are non-White.

This is the ideology of the great “civil rights icons” at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

SPLC — Selective Indignation

October 20, 2009

When is a “hate group” not a “hate group”? When it affects the bottom line, of course.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which bills itself ceaselessly in its public relations press releases as “a leading civil rights” organization, is willing to turn a blind eye toward some of the most blatant and egregious forms of discrimination to avoid alienating their all-important donors.

One of the first domestic controversies President Obama encountered came in March, 2009, when he was offered the honorary presidency of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), an honor bestowed upon every president since William Taft. Gay rights groups rallied to urge the President to reject the title, as the BSA bans gays from becoming scout leaders.

According to the BSA’s official web site: (Note: This is an archived memo from the Internet Archives. It may take a few moments to load.)

“The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices.”

Seems clear enough: “Gays are not moral enough to be scout leaders.”

On its official web site, the SPLC states that:

“All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

Again, fairly plain English: “Hate groups malign entire classes of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

If ever there were a job custom made for America’s “leading civil rights organization,” this would be it. The PR spin practically writes itself:

  • The Boy Scouts accept federal funding, yet discriminate
  • Indoctrination of impressionable children
  • Paramilitary uniforms, weapons and survival training
  • The SPLC has some of the most prominent “anti-hate” lawyers in the country on its payroll and a war chest of over $151 MILLION donor dollars on hand

And yet, nary a word about this textbook “hate group” on the SPLC’s web site. They don’t even recognize the BSA as one of their 11 anti-gay groups.

In 2008, SPLC public relations guru, Mark Potok, received a Media Award from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), for his reporting on gay issues in his “Intelligence Report.” Obviously, Potok cannot claim to be ignorant of the BSA’s blatantly anti-gay bias, so what gives?

The simplest answer is that many of the SPLC’s mostly elderly donor base were once Boy Scouts, as were their sons and grandsons. These donors send in tens of millions of dollars every year, over $30 million in the last fiscal year. Calling the BSA “haters” would reflect badly on all those former scouts.

Fighting “hate” is all well and good, until it threatens the bottom line.

In September, 2009, Potok began playing up the senseless murder of Marcelo Lucero on Long Island. The Ecuadorian immigrant was attacked by a group of teenaged thugs on the night of November 8, 2008, and Lucero died from the assault.

Less than a month later, and only a few miles away from where Lucero fell, another Ecuadorian immigrant, Jose Sucuzhanay, and his brother were walking home from a bar in Brooklyn when they too were attacked by a group of young thugs. The Sucuzhanay brothers were walking arm-in-arm on the cold night of December 7, which led the thugs to mistakenly believe that the two men were gay.

As the thugs beat Jose with an aluminum baseball bat, his brother Romel was able to escape and call the police. Jose died five days later in the hospital.

Two heinous crimes against Latino immigrants, one of which was incited by the mistaken belief that the victim was gay, and yet you will find almost nothing about the second case on the SPLC’s website. Why?

Because Jose Sucuzhanay’s murderers were black.

The SPLC rarely reports on crimes where the perps are non-white, and their donor base has no interest in hearing about attacks on gays, even when the victim is straight.

So the SPLC shoves the entire story down the Memory Hole and that’s the end of it.

Hypocrisy and greed triumph once again.


%d bloggers like this: