The 13 Lies Of The Southern Poverty Law Center
By Greg L | 24 March 2008 | Illegal Aliens | 9 Comments
From the looks of today’s MJM, some folks out there still seem to be confused about what the truth is, if they were interested in the truth to begin with. Just because the Southern Poverty Law Center decided to say something hardly means that there’s any truth to what is said.
Greg Letiecq, 42
Manassas, Va.
WRONG: Greg Letiecq is not 42 years old.
More than 50 immigration-restriction state bills and local ordinances were introduced in Virginia over the course of 2007, although the overwhelming majority of them were voted down. The few that passed were concentrated mostly in a small cluster of counties in northern Virginia that has become a nest to thousands of nativists marching to the tune of former Maryland Army National Guard infantryman Greg Letiecq.
Letiecq is head of the nativist extremist organization Help Save Manassas, which boasts more than 2,000 members.
WRONG: At the time of publication, Help Save Manassas had 1970 members, and is not at all a “nativist extremist organization”. Extremists do not have their legislative agenda endorsed repeatedly by bi-partisan unanimous majorities in multiple jurisdictions — that’s quite obviously what is called “mainstream.”
He also runs “Black Velvet Bruce Li,” one of the most popular anti-immigration blogs in the region. On it, Letiecq refers to day-labor centers as “open-air toilets” and describes Latino pro-immigrant activists as “mobs of machete-wielding radicals wearing ski masks” who are part of a global “Zapatista” conspiracy that also includes “burning cars in the suburbs of Paris.”
LIE COUNT: 1. References to “mobs of machete-wielding radicals” and “burning cars in the suburbs of Paris” was a description of pictures posted on the official website of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (see http://galeria.ezln.org.mx/thumbnails.php?album=7), and was not descriptive of local anti-immigration activists as the SPLC claims. I never made such statements about local groups that support the interests of illegal aliens. (see actual website article, press release)
Letiecq formed Help Save Manassas in April 2007. Members protested at day-labor sites and successfully pressured the Prince William County Board of Supervisors to pass a local ordinance severely limiting the access of immigrants to public benefits. The ordinance, co-authored by Letiecq, became law in July 2007. Later that year, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the groundbreaking law, clearing the way for similar ordinances in other communities.
LIE COUNT: 2-4
Help Save Manassas has never engaged in a protest of any kind, much less at a day laborer site.
I did not “co-author” the Rule of Law Resolution, but brought constitutional lawyers and members of the Board of County Supervisors together to draft the ordinance along with several members of the community.
The Rule of law resolution is not an ordinance, but a statement of policy that has never been enacted into law.
Since then, Letiecq has branded the “Help Save” moniker by helping to establish six spin-off groups in Virginia (”Help Save” Fairfax, Hampton Roads, Herndon, Loudon, Stafford and Old Dominion) and one in Maryland. This network is part of the Coalition on Illegal Aliens, whose members include small-town mayors, county commissioners and city council members, many of whom are also members of one or more “Help Save” chapters.
LIE COUNT: 5-13
I did not “brand” the “Help Save moniker” and subsequent to the formation of Help Save Manassas have not been involved in the establishment a single organization using that phrase.
I did not establish Help Save Fairfax, Help Save Hampton Roads, the city of Herndon (or Help Save Herndon), Loudoun County (or Help Save Loudoun), Stafford County or “Old Dominion”, or any organizations in the State of Maryland. None of these organizations are members of the “Coalition on Illegal Aliens”, which is comprised solely of local governments in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I did assist in the formation of Save Stafford in Stafford County, VA and Save The Old Dominion.
Not everyone in Manassas thinks their city needs saving. The Manassas Park City Council last year lambasted Letiecq’s “false representation of the city’s position,” calling his efforts “a vigilante agenda that the city believes is irresponsible and offensive.”
But Letiecq shows no signs of letting up. “We are obliged to defend our embattled culture before we inexorably veer off onto [a] destructive path,” he wrote in “Our Culture Under Assault,” an essay in the December issue of Frontline, his group’s newsletter. “Whether our battle is combating the ‘press one for English’ insanity, or preventing the pollution of our longstanding cultural traditions with pagan harvest rituals from Mexico in our Christmas celebrations, we must engage in the struggle.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center puts it’s credibility as an organization at significant risk basing blanket condemnations upon such utterly shoddy research. It is readily apparent that they have no idea what they are talking about and that their conclusions are fundamentally flawed. The reckless disregard for the truth displayed by the Southern Poverty Law Center in their recent publication attacking me and several other highly regarded organizations and individuals demonstrates that the fine organization that once battled so valiantly for justice is now but a hollow shell of its former glory, prone to exhibiting poor legal judgment, and incapable of determining the truth.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
9 Comments
Views: 1124
Loading ...
I saw this on another blog. It spells out what RACIST means as an acronym:
R-A-C-I-S-T Real American Committed to Integrity, Sovereignty and Truth. - Dr. Madeline Cosman, Ph.D.
This attack on Greg shows just how effective he and HSM have been.
I like Cosman’s definitionof racist.
The TRUTH? The SPLC and Morris Dees doesn’t care about the TRUTH! All they are about is getting money, so they fan the flames of racial discord with the hope that the White Liberals will keep writing big checks.
Morris Dees has been laughing all the way to the bank, while not one new economic opportunity was created for minorities, out of his group’s so-called work.
The John D. and Catherine MacArthur Foundation? They also give
heavily to the Violence Policy Center (Sarah Brady’s bunch). Does
Dees get $$ from them too?
Issue Date: June 11, 2007, Posted On: 6/8/2007
Powerful foundations financing pro-immigration groups
By Sean Lengell, The Washington Times
Wealthy philanthropic foundations are helping bankroll the pro-immigration movement, while groups advocating for tighter control of U.S. borders say they take a more grass-roots approach to raising money.
The Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and Democratic activist George Soros were among the liberal funders that have donated millions of dollars to pro-immigration groups, as the Senate continued its debate on a contentious bill that would overhaul the nation’s immigration policy.
Three of the nation’s biggest and most influential pro-immigration groups — the National Immigration Forum, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) — collectively received more than $3.25 million from Ford Foundation since 2005.
The three advocacy groups generally support the proposed Senate bill — which would give many of the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. a path to citizenship. The bill also would allow aliens here to bring close family members into the country.
Pro-immigration nonprofit groups say they’re hardly awash in cash compared to organizations lobbying on other contentious issues, such as abortion, the environment and tort reform.
“To me, it’s remarkable how little money goes into immigration reform on both sides of the issue,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. “It’s Lilliputian.”
Mr. Sharry said groups on both sides of the immigration issue can rightfully be considered “grass-roots” outfits.
“We have a staff of only 10 people,” Mr. Sharry said of his group, which supports allowing aliens a path to legal residency or citizenship. “These groups on all sides of the debate are small, intense and highly informed.”
But groups supporting stronger immigration policy and tighter border control say they rely more on small donations from individuals than large foundations.
NumbersUSA, which says it has 366,000 members, saw its membership grow 50 percent since Jan. 1 and 18 percent in May, spokeswoman Caroline Espinosa said. Two-thirds of the group’s financial support comes from private people, with the average donation being $40.
“Contrary to what might be popular belief is that the grass-roots aspect is more on our side than the [pro-immigration] side,” Mrs. Espinosa said. “They have more of these organized, established types of groups funding them and driving their activism.”
John Tanton, a retired small-town Michigan ophthalmologist who helped organize Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies, says money alone won’t win the immigration debate.
“Money can be a help, but it also can be a hindrance,” he said. “If you don’t have to go out and meet the public and get shouted at and get direct-mail surveys rejected, then you won’t know about the pulse of the public.
“We’ve had our share of major supporters, but we’ve had to rely on nickel-and-dime support,” Mr. Tanton said.
A complete list of funders isn’t available, as these lobby groups are not legally required to report their funding sources. But many major philanthropic institutions make at least part of their donor lists public, showing a strong pro-immigration bias in their donating.
The Open Society Institute, run by Mr. Soros, has given $825,000 from 2002 to 2004 to the National Immigration Forum.
Mr. Soros, who donated large sums of money in a failed effort to defeat President Bush’s bid for re-election in 2004, also has donated $525,000 to NCLR and $325,000 to MALDEF during the same period.
The Ford Foundation, with assets of more than $9 billion, is known to favor liberal causes. The foundation was significantly criticized in 2003 after it gave millions of dollars worth of grants to Palestinian nonprofit groups that later were accused of conducting terrorist activities.
The Carnegie Corporation has contributed almost $7 million collectively to the National Immigration Forum, MALDEF and NCLR since 1994.
NCLR also collected almost $2.2 million from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation from 2003 to 2005 and $425,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation since 2004.
The Rockefeller Foundation since 2004 also have given more than $1 million to MALDEF and $300,000 to the National Immigration Law Center.
About one-third of NCLR’s budget comes from foundations, NCLR spokeswoman Lisa Navarrete said, noting, however, that her group cannot use money from tax-exempt foundations for political purposes, but rather uses it to support its other functions.
“Foundation money is used strictly for policy purposes and research work,” she said. “We keep a strict line on that.”
Less than 2 percent of NCLR’s budget is used to promote its immigration agenda, she added. “We’re a Latino advocacy group. What we do is much broader than just immigration,” Ms. Navarrete said.
Advocacy groups on the other side of the immigration debate are not without some financial support from philanthropic entities.
The conservative Scaife Foundations of Pittsburgh gave FAIR — one of the biggest immigration-control nonprofit groups — $775,000 from 2003 to 2005. The foundations during the same time period also gave $420,000 to the Center for Immigration Studies and $100,000 to the NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation — groups also that advocate tighter border control and restricting the flow of immigrants.
The Scaife Foundations, which include the Sarah Scaife and Carthage foundations, are connected with conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, the principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil and aluminum fortune.
The F.M. Kirby Foundation, which has supported many conservative nonprofit groups in recent years, gave $475,000 to NumbersUSA since 1998 and donated more than $375,000 to FAIR since 2000. But overall, opponents of the bill say they rely more on strength in membership numbers that translates beyond donations, noting the more than 750,000 faxes opposing the Senate bill sent to members of Congress last month.
“This just shows how angry people are about this bill and over the idea of amnesty and allowing 12 million illegal aliens to remain here in this country and basically get rewarded for breaking the law,” Mrs. Espinosa said.
The ignorant masses are much easier to control than those who really know the truth of the SPLC or any other pc, agenda-driven lib groups. Why do you think the libs want to shut down conservative talk radio with the Fairness Act?
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
—David Rockefeller
It is about the billions to be made through globalization. It makes no difference if they are republican or democrat, but that they are a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Many of our prominent politicians are members. The CFR is behind the North American Union. The amnesty of millions of illegal Mexicans is part of the plan. This is why they drag their feet enforcing existing law as well as providing comprehensive immigration reform. They are not above playing both sides of the fence to reach their objectives. If the argument continues, it allows more time to push the “real” agenda, which when it goes through will render this argument moot. It is all about the money.
Citizen 12,
You’re right on the money with that one. (no pun intended). For
years I’ve been sounding the alarm about the Bilderberger/Trilateralists
and most just ignore my warnings. The European press
reports them much better than in the US. This is something that needs
to be addressed more.
[Ed note: comment edited. Squirrel, you need some help, dude.]
Neither the Southern Poverty Law Center’s report, nor the diplomas of the staffers who wrote it, are worth the ink it took to print them.
I’ve finally understood that the SPLC and for that matter most liberal religious, gender, racial, and ethnic political “groups”, always support the underdog, or more technically the group of individual that is represented as the least common ideology in our society. They see the majority desires as offensive and taking advantage of the “perceived” innocent minority. This desire to support the minority group underdog, exists whether or not the issue is morally right or morally wrong for the majority of the society at large.
I finally understand why a liberal defense of these special interest groups seeking special priviliges, defies all logic and rational thinking.
It is the heart of the motivation of a “social engineer”. These people (with legal and social science degrees), think of themselves as true engineers of a social concept that the underdog or minority is always right, in the right and is fighting the repression of the majority on any and all ethical and social issues. Socialism is king, and we are the knights that fight for right of the underachievers and underdogs of the social order. The majority is always wrong, is the motto, whether it is a gender issue, racial issue, religious issue or ethnic group issue. It is only good individual civil liberties right if it is a right that helps the minority individuals. If it is a right that helps a majority individual civil liberty, that is not a protected class right.
It does not matter what the issue is, only that they achieve the ego rush of superman or superwoman to the rescue of the little guy against the big guy. The bigger the battle, the more they feel the pride of achieving victory, the rush of power that comes with saving a child like a parent from the cruel world, or even the reality of the rational and justifiable ethics of the world.
That is the reason they do what they do, regardless if it breaks the law, hurts the innocent of the majority, is against social peace and stability or a national ethic. It is thier huge ego’s that drive this motivation against all reasonable logic and ethics with a psychotic desire to break the law of the status quo.