Previous Post
Next Post

Press release by Richard Cohen, President Southern Poverty Law Center

We’ve all seen the pictures from Charlottesville. Peaceful protesters being met with men carrying military-style weapons. Many of those unarmed were probably intimidated. I certainly think I would have been.

What did the scene represent? Were we looking at a clash of grand constitutional values, a clash between the cherished First Amendment right to protest peacefully and the revered Second Amendment right to bear arms? Or were we looking at something much more mundane?

The answer is the latter. Our Founding Fathers didn’t tie us into a constitutional knot. Our state legislatures, bowing to pressure from groups like the NRA, did so not too many years back.

Nothing in the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to carry a gun whenever and wherever one may choose. In the Supreme Court’s seminal opinion in the Heller case, the late Justice Antonin Scalia emphasized that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” State regulations, for example, prohibiting “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” Justice Scalia explained, were undoubtedly constitutional.

Lower courts have ruled that “sensitive places” include national parks, university football games, post offices, vehicles and aircrafts. If a university football game or a national park can be considered to be sensitive places where guns have no place, surely public assemblies, particularly those that might trigger strong emotions, are as well.

So what stopped Charlottesville from prohibiting demonstrators from carrying weapons this past weekend? A Virginia statute passed in 1997 that precludes Charlottesville from exercising any common sense in such situations. Specifically, Virginia’s law says no city, town, or county in the state can enact any local gun law or administrative policy not authorized by state statute.

In fact, more than 40 states have similar laws. Although the details differ, they generally have one thing in common – they were typically championed by Republican legislators eager to curry favor with the gun lobby.

Some of these laws do not simply tie the hands of local officials, they actually threaten them. Kentucky lawmakers, for example, in 2012 made it a criminal offense for local officials to violate the state’s firearms preemption statute.

A case out of Virginia shows just how irrational that state’s law is. George Mason University, located in Northern Virginia just outside of Washington, D.C., passed a regulation prohibiting the carry of firearms not simply in university buildings but also at any university event. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the law, holding that both university buildings and university events like football games were “sensitive places” where people congregate and are vulnerable. The reason why George Mason could have such a reasonable regulation while the city of Charlottesville could not is because George Mason is an instrumentality of the state – not a city, town or county.

States are not powerless to change their gun laws. All it takes is the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and the common sense to know that guns and public protests do not mix. Indeed, the events in Charlottesville last weekend prove that the combination is a recipe for disaster. Mayors and other local officials should demand that state legislatures temper their open-carry laws with a little common sense.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Mr law review if you are going to quote law the you should be accurate Obama passed into law that you can carbin national parks so go back to school

    • “this guy hates rights. always has.”

      He hates *your* rights.

      He *loves* what he considers his ‘rights’.

      The SPLC should be declared a terrorist organization…

      • At one time they were considered a hate group. When did that change? Right around ‘08. Now, for some reason, they’re treated as the arbiter of what constitutes “hate groups” and “hate speech”. The truth is much simpler. While one may characterize a group- such as the Klan -as a hate group, there is literally NO SUCH THING as hate speech. Hate speech, or any kind of protest speech, is why the freedom of speech is protected. Nor a hate crime. Something is either a crime, or not. What the perpetrator(s) felt at the time of the crime doesn’t have anything to do with, well- anything. By the way, the reason these people armed themselves is because they’d seen what had happened to unarmed protesters who’d gone up against ANTIFA. Many, many people ended up in the hospital. Hell, a college professor who was masked and protesting with ANTIFA hit a free speech marcher in the head with a damn padlock!! Thankfully, the internet came through and he was identified. He’s currently facing assault and attempted murder charges. I’d go strapped too. Probably not open carry, but I’d be strapped.

      • I am originally from Alabama and I have always been angered by this idiot! He proclaims himself the sole arbiter of truth and freedom while trampling on the freedoms of others! He is militant in his expression when it comes to groups that he hates. This includes the NRA and all of the other alphabet gun groups in the US are his favorite targets where he claims they are racist, homophobic, sexist, and hate groups all because they support the Second Amendment! He has called for pro-2A groups to be censured and their 1A rights revoked! If ever hate speech were a real thing, Richard Cohen is guilty.

  1. Not a single shot was fired…. that’s real gun control, from real armed citizens. No further discussion is required.

      • Until the trial and all the evidence comes out, a case cannot even be made for car control.

        • I suspect he will walk either to mental disease or defect or self defense. I looked over the video, his car was damaged before he ran into the mob. Let that be a lesson to you kids. Don’t join a violent lynch mob with ANTIFA, your would be victims always get a say.

    • Don has it right …not a shot fired …violence was started by protesters there who had no legal permit to assemble. .. though the white supremacist groups did… I in no way support their beliefs but they did have a legal right to peacefully assemble…can the other side say that…

  2. Maybe we should just ban hate groups from meeting other hate groups in public. Such as happened in Charlottesville.

    • You do realize that’s the entire point of letting them fight each other in Charlottesville, right? The governor has already said he won’t approve any more permits to protest statue removals, and simultaneously conveniently unveils a list of various monuments/names/symbols he wants to purge from the public eye. Do keep in mind this guy is absolutely posturing for president & has been for several years now; he is easily devious/sophisticated enough to concoct a political crisis that he can use to make himself look good in the eyes of the leftist base, and all signs of the street brawls at Charlottesville (not the car thing) point to it being a largely leftist-fabricated incident. Down to the guy leading the Nazi fighters having many suspicious and well hidden links (seemingly still active) to the communist agitators he had his guys square off against.

      • An argument could be made that the death by vehicle is the responsibility of the leftists because had antifa counter protesters not been there, this incident would never have happened.

      • Governments ALWAYS decide who is a “Hate group”, that’s why the Second Amendment states categorically that the government is enjoined: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT INFRINGED.”

  3. Southern Poverty Law Center: Hypocrisy Incorporated

    I wonder if protesters met with pink aluminum bats, fists, pepper spray, squirt bottles of bleach, biohazard waste, knives, SKS rifles, and now bombs accompanying earnest cries for blood felt intimidated by the ‘unarmed’ communists. It’s as though the “civil rights” “advocates” are somehow unfamiliar with how many blacks were beaten to death or lynched by ‘unarmed’ mobs of the exact same nature as the communists. Or gays, or any other demographic group.

    SPLC is, was, and always has been a con job to bilk dollars from well-meaning sub/urbanite benefactors. There’s plenty of backstory on this with plenty of evidence available via simple search for those who care to know.

    • Simple Google searches on the SPLC will show differing opinions, but there’s a lot of evidence that the SPLC isn’t as squeaky clean as many would have us believe. They definitely have an agenda beyond their stated one.

  4. SPLC: institute of leftists, cowards to the core, willing to die rather than defend themselves. It is groups like them that created the problem for their idiotology that NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES! Since they run a gun free zone, perhaps they need a wake up call! The 2nd does give you the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in it’s design and intent to preserve life and freedom. Only liberal and democratic jackasses see anything but that. And that’s because they are the majority group responsible for the majority of mass shootings, presidential assassinations, shootings of public officials and anyone else that disagrees with them!

    • Except the government, which shall defend, all. Shall punish, all. Shall judge the good and the wicked, and reward the righteous.

  5. Sorry, Bubba.

    Virginia has spent awhile guaranteeing that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is open carry (of handguns and long guns) and the PAID PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms is the concealed carry of a handgun.

    He is advocating for the removal of Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution.

    Table of Contents » Article I. Bill of Rights
    Article Print PDF email
    Read Full Constitution
    Article I. Bill of Rights
    A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

    Section 1. Equality and rights of men.
    That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

    Section 2. People the source of power.
    That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

    Section 3. Government instituted for common benefit.
    That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

    Section 4. No exclusive emoluments or privileges; offices not to be hereditary.
    That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

    Section 5. Separation of legislative, executive, and judicial departments; periodical elections.
    That the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Commonwealth should be separate and distinct; and that the members thereof may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by regular elections, in which all or any part of the former members shall be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws may direct.

    Section 6. Free elections; consent of governed.
    That all elections ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed, or deprived of, or damaged in, their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives duly elected, or bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good.

    Section 7. Laws should not be suspended.
    That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

    Section 8. Criminal prosecutions.
    That in criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, and to call for evidence in his favor, and he shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. He shall not be deprived of life or liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, nor be compelled in any criminal proceeding to give evidence against himself, nor be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.

    Laws may be enacted providing for the trial of offenses not felonious by a court not of record without a jury, preserving the right of the accused to an appeal to and a trial by jury in some court of record having original criminal jurisdiction. Laws may also provide for juries consisting of less than twelve, but not less than five, for the trial of offenses not felonious, and may classify such cases, and prescribe the number of jurors for each class.

    In criminal cases, the accused may plead guilty. If the accused plead not guilty, he may, with his consent and the concurrence of the Commonwealth’s Attorney and of the court entered of record, be tried by a smaller number of jurors, or waive a jury. In case of such waiver or plea of guilty, the court shall try the case.

    The provisions of this section shall be self-executing.

    Section 8-A. Rights of victims of crime.
    That in criminal prosecutions, the victim shall be accorded fairness, dignity and respect by the officers, employees and agents of the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions and officers of the courts and, as the General Assembly may define and provide by law, may be accorded rights to reasonable and appropriate notice, information, restitution, protection, and access to a meaningful role in the criminal justice process. These rights may include, but not be limited to, the following:
    1. The right to protection from further harm or reprisal through the imposition of appropriate bail and conditions of release;
    2. The right to be treated with respect, dignity and fairness at all stages of the criminal justice system;
    3. The right to address the circuit court at the time sentence is imposed;
    4. The right to receive timely notification of judicial proceedings;
    5. The right to restitution;
    6. The right to be advised of release from custody or escape of the offender, whether before or after disposition; and
    7. The right to confer with the prosecution.
    This section does not confer upon any person a right to appeal or modify any decision in a criminal proceeding, does not abridge any other right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or this Constitution, and does not create any cause of action for compensation or damages against the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions, any officer, employee or agent of the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions, or any officer of the court.

    The amendment ratified November 5, 1996 and effective January 1, 1997—Added a new section (8-A).

    Section 9. Prohibition of excessive bail and fines, cruel and unusual punishment, suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws.
    That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of invasion or rebellion, the public safety may require; and that the General Assembly shall not pass any bill of attainder, or any ex post facto law.

    Section 10. General warrants of search or seizure prohibited.
    That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.

    Section 11. Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking or damaging of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases.
    That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts; and that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination.

    That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred. The General Assembly may limit the number of jurors for civil cases in courts of record to not less than five.

    That the General Assembly shall pass no law whereby private property, the right to which is fundamental, shall be damaged or taken except for public use. No private property shall be damaged or taken for public use without just compensation to the owner thereof. No more private property may be taken than necessary to achieve the stated public use. Just compensation shall be no less than the value of the property taken, lost profits and lost access, and damages to the residue caused by the taking. The terms “lost profits” and “lost access” are to be defined by the General Assembly. A public service company, public service corporation, or railroad exercises the power of eminent domain for public use when such exercise is for the authorized provision of utility, common carrier, or railroad services. In all other cases, a taking or damaging of private property is not for public use if the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development, except for the elimination of a public nuisance existing on the property. The condemnor bears the burden of proving that the use is public, without a presumption that it is.

    The amendment ratified November 6, 2012, and effective January 1, 2013—In the heading of the section, after “taking”, added “or damaging”. In paragraph one, after “contracts”, deleted “, nor any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term ‘public uses’ to be defined by the General Assembly”. Added a new paragraph after paragraph two.

    Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.
    That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

    Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

    What’s even more difficult for him to change is the fact that the militia is the body of the people trained to arms. It is very specific and includes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    Good luck with that!

  6. Hatefull all those people exercising their Right to Bear Arms! And yet, not one person was shot.

  7. What this guy misses in his screed about guns is the actual language used in the second. His attempt to analogize the second to the first and justify ‘common sense’ restrictions in ‘sensitive places’ is a total red herring. The second doesn’t say anything about guns, anywhere. It prohibits the gov from infringing on the right to bear ‘arms’. If I can’t open carry my pistol or my rifle, or my shotgun, or my bofors at a rally because ‘common sense’ restrictions about ‘sensitive places’, then professor bike lock can’t have his eponymous bike locks, the ‘honor guard’ from H.H.’s funeral can’t have their baseball bats, shields or helmets, and moldylocks can’t have her glass bottles and can only protest with both of her arms tied behind her back.

    From what I’ve seen, with the exception of the challenger driver, charlottesville was one of the more peaceful confrontations, despite being a heavily left wing city surrounded by heavily right wing rural areas. Why? You can’t ignore the explanation that noone wants to get too froggy when there are dudes with rifles on the block. Maybe berk’s mayor and police chief could learn something from the militias.

    Also, #carcontrol. It’s for the children.

    Also, not being allowed to carry while I exercise my rights to free association, free speech, and to seek redress from the goverment forces me to choose to give up one or more roghts in order to exercise others. That’s frowned upon in thos establishment.

    *to be clear, the second says I can stroll around wherever I want strapped with whatever I want.

    • Ah Mo you miss the point…that pesky 2A was written by evil 18th century white men-many slave owners😜Nothing they codified could POSSIBLY be right. So sez the SPLC. F##k ’em…

    • Here here…couldn’t be explained in a more simple term. Shall not be infringed ! How much more simple can it be stated !?

  8. Rich jerk in Georgia wants to tell Virginians what their laws should be.
    Cohen, you’re a freak. Stay in your lane. We aren’t interested in your irrational phobias.

  9. This press release is all build up but no release.
    “Many of those unarmed were probably intimidated. I certainly think I would have been.”
    Just add an adult diaper to your “Bash the Fash” protester kit and move on, Richard.

    • In the case of the militia with open carry or any other law abiding open carry gun owner, it is not the guns you see that is the problem. It is the criminal with the unseen gun bent on violence you should be concerned about. Open carry is a deterrent to those criminals bent on shooting people. After all, how many times are officers shot in doughnut shops? I can only think of once in the last 40 years I know about. Of course now days, with police targeted, it is even more important to demand and exercise your rights to open carry.

  10. While I don’t agree with their open carry statement, at least the SPLC supports national reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act.

  11. Those poor peaceful protesters throwing rocks, punches and running people over. Being intimidated by those mean gun guys who tried to break up fights without shooting or threatening anyone.

    If there was ever a time when your right to keep and bear arms didn’t apply, it’s clearly around the KKK and ANTIFA

  12. If we had a drinking game where you took a shot -of alcohol- every time these folks said “common sense” we’d be hammered 24/7.

  13. The 2nd Amendment also says “…shall not be infringed”. Why they keep saying what it allows vs does not allow is beyond me. It says “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!” Also, he’s saying the 1st amendment is more important than the 2nd because they can show up to protest, but not with guns. I’d say, they are equally important. As soon as the gov’t starts censoring what we can say, that will be just as scary a day as if they start confiscating firearms in full tilt.

  14. “Southern Poverty Law Center”


    No seriously. I’ve never heard of them outside of a few appearances on “rabid leftists say the dumbest things”.

  15. In the not too distant future, there will be two Americas: Free America, and Socialist Progressive America.

    Both Americas will have their share of problems. As for me, I’d rather deal with the problems that come with too much freedom, then those problems which come with too few freedoms.

  16. After Lyft sent a message to all drivers warning of white supremacists and informing that they are partnering with SPLC, I sent them this:

    Just received a ridiculous message from lyft blaming white people for perpetrating violence against minorities.
    I’m sure this was a corporate knee jerk reaction the the events at Charlottesville VA.
    However, to be fair, minorities are per capita, the most violent people in this country. This isn’t a statement based on racism. It is is based on FBI statistics.
    In my area, Southside Atlanta, 100% of my passengers have been minorities. One of them admitted that I was her first white driver. How’s that diversity thing working out?
    I get along with everyone no matter the race. I fear no one no matter the race. For lyft to put out this warning to minority drivers about being careful with white passengers is appalling.
    I had a choice to drive for Uber or lyft. I chose lyft because I didn’t want to work for a company that did not share my values. It appears that lyft is yet another corporate sellout to the social justice activists who are responsible for most of the violence taking place in recent months.
    I’m a new driver with lyft, so I am unaware if a similar broadcast went out following the Ferguson and Berkley riots. If so, I retract my criticism and appreciate your consistency.

    • This was their reply:

      Hi Michael,

      We understand that individuals have different views on the recent events in Charlottesville.

      Lyft believes that these actions are antithetical to our core values and Lyft was built on a belief in respect and kindness. This decision was made in order to help combat any sort of racial hatred in our society and to help better ourselves as a company and as members of our community.

      Our decision to partner with the Southern Poverty Law Center was made with the vision of tolerance and equality in mind. I apologize if this choice offends you and we respect whatever decision regarding Lyft you feel is appropriate.

      All the best

      • And my rebut :

        The Southern Poverty Law Center holds the false position that only white people are capable of hate and violence.
        By partnering with that biased, propagandist organization, lyft is telling me, a white male, that you have no regard for the truth as it applies to all good citizens, regardless of skin color and by the tone of your “dear John” letter in response to my concerns, it is apparent that you place social justice above profit.
        You can’t combat bigotry by ignoring hate when that group guilty of documented violence and murder are from a minority protected by the SPLC and other leftist organizations including corporate media from legitimate condemnation.
        I would also like to point out that you support Black Lives Matter, an organization openly calling for the murder of police officers, while at the same time advise your minority drivers to call 911 when faced with a threat. This is textbook definition of hypocrisy.
        I in no way advocate for the actions or beliefs of white supremacists. I am merely pointing out that the SPLC and by association, lyft, does advocate for violence and hatred from groups such as Antifa, BLM, and radical Islamic extremists.
        I’ll be removing your emblems that desecrate my vehicle and I would say good luck with your future as a company, but that would be hypocritical of me

      • “This decision was made in order to help combat any sort of racial hatred in our society and to help better ourselves as a company and as members of our community.”

        So telling drivers to beware of whites is helping to combat racial hatred.
        Got it.

  17. “Some of these laws do not simply tie the hands of local officials, they actually threaten them. Kentucky lawmakers, for example, in 2012 made it a criminal offense for local officials to violate the state’s firearms preemption statute.”

    OMG penalties for breaking laws! Imagine that mayors not being allowed to run cities like their own private fiefdoms. It’s like we think we live in some sort of democratic republic. That’s so hypocritically delicious coming from Mr. Dick Cohen who’s life work is using the power of the judicial system to club everyone who disagrees with them into submission.

  18. Tell me again Mr. Dick Cohen how many people were shot at he Charlottesville protest? Oh, ya 00.

  19. Well…. he did it get it sort of right….

    “..nothing in the Second Amendment gives anyone the right”

    True. The Second Amendment doesn’t GIVE rights. It defines the pre-existing right and confirms the Government shall not infringe upon that right.

  20. Once again someone forgot the fact that if a criminal wants to he will bring a gun anywhere (even prison **cough cough** huh?!? it didn’t fall out!) So why does this douchebag think that a law abiding citizen isn’t perfectly able to carry to such events?

  21. I find it amazing that the Left is making a big deal about open carry at an event where guns played absolutely no role.

  22. Charlottesville riot was wanted by the governor and mayor. They pulled the police creating the conditions for the riot and death.

    Open carry may ave intimidated some but no shots were fired, nobody was injured by a bullet that wasn’t fired. Maybe worse violence was avoided by the armed militia [oath keepers?].

    Justice Scalia DID NOT SAY long standing gun laws were constitutional. He warned that until the Court actually heard evidence on a particular law it was still enforceable. Prudence says be careful.

    The Gun Free School Zone law was ruled to be unconstitutional and Congress passed it again with a few words of claims of power and outcomes that have been proven false. Schools are not safer, students do not get a better education, GFSZ are proven to be more dangerous and i the Democrat controlled urban schools, drop outs, death and pregnancy are worse that they were before the law was passed decades ago.

    Justice Taney said that all citizens could carry arms, singly or in company, could cross state lines and stay as long as they wanted. Of course being a racist he also said like all Democrats that black people could not be citizens or exercise the right to keep and bear arms, or learn to read or talk politics. Read the entirety of the Dred Scott case and te Miller and Heller cases.

  23. Interesting – he thinks that the OathKeepers and/or other armed folks who were legally present and didn’t actually shoot anyone, were “intimidating.” Well, it seems he’s right; apparently they were. I’ve seen no evidence yet that there was any of the violence that occurred between the Antifa and right-wingers in the areas where those “intimidating” “armed militias” were present. So, what’s the problem?

  24. Anyone seriously describing MSRs as ” military-style weapons” is a liar. The whole point of using such a phrase is to confuse the ignorant, like Juan Williams, into believing that the guns carried were machine guns. (Juan Williams does believe that white supremacists marched outside of a synagogue with “machine guns”). I doubt there are enough well heeled white supremacists to have a march with machine guns.

  25. My goodness. It’s almost like a charter of government that says: “Congress shall make no law…” is there to keep representatives and administrators from doing something stupid when they’re busy reacting & pandering.

    That so many in govt don’t know what to do with themselves when they’re not reacting and pandering illustrates why this is a good thing.

  26. The SPLC has been running their scam since the mid-70’s. They really ramped up by the early 80’s. The SPLC is a classic “affinity con,” much like Madoff’s “investment” fund was an affinity con.

    Affinity cons work like this in both the SPLC and Madoff cases: “Well, they’re nice Jewish boys, they’d never screw me, a little old Jewish lady, out of her money…”

    Wrong, Grammy. There are several Jews who will do just that – scam you out of your money and Bernie Madoff and the SPLC are two of the best in history at it, and they’re scamming you specifically because you’re Jewish and they’re going to play that angle.

    That’s literally how so many high-worth Jews got scammed by Madoff – Madoff played up the angle that he was a fellow Jew, and traded on the belief that Jews wouldn’t screw a fellow Jew, would they? Jews invested with Madoff took to calling him the “Jewish T-bill,” as tho investing with Madoff were as secure as owning US Treasury debt, despite the mathematical impossibility of Madoff’s claims. Madoff’s scam was easily suspected by anyone who knows something about capital markets. My first suspicion was that there wasn’t enough options volume in the options markets to contain his fund’s reported assets being allocated as he claimed they were.

    There was a heartbreaking story in Harry Markopolos’ book about a young man, marrying into a wealthy Jewish family, and everything this family had was with Madoff. Markopolos recounted how the young man had suspicions, asked Markopolos about Madoff, and Markopolos warned the young man, with details and facts. The future son-in-law tried to warn his future father-in-law, who refused to believe a word against Madoff. A couple months after the Madoff scandal broke, Markopolos got a note from the young man, thanking him for the time Markopolos took to explain everything to him – but, sadly, the young man reported “it’s all gone.” Right there was an excellent single example of how affinity cons work – and how loathsome they are.

    The SPLC does the same sort of affinity con – they send around mailers and alarmist material to little old Jews in Chicago, NYC, etc – and have been for decades, warning them of these “dire” threats – which, in fact, are mostly groups of a half-dozen morons meeting in someone’s garage in northern Idaho or some such. They always play up the gun angle – always. The SPLC makes some group no one has ever heard of into the next coming of the national-level Brownshirts, and the money rolls in. The SPLC always makes sure that their current frontmen have nice, easily identified Jewish names (eg, Cohen, above) to work their affinity angle.

    Don’t believe me. Go look at Ken Silverstein’s reporting in Harpers:

    Here’s a blog entry by Silverstein on the SPLC:

    There have been several investigations done and published of the SPLC since the 90’s. I did a bunch of legwork on these clowns in the early 90’s, when they were hot and heavy trying to tie people who were against Clinton and the Clinton gun control legislation in 1994, to militias, “white supremacy,” “Christian Identity,” and “neo-Nazi” groups. What I found was this: The SPLC should be investigated for mail fraud, full stop.

    The best way to neuter the SPLC is to expose their financial success at scamming people. Charity Navigator will tell you what a horrible destination for your charitable donations they are. Investigative pieces in various magazines since the 90’s through the last couple of years will tell you what a lowlife slimeball Morris Dees is. Off the top of my head, I can think of several pieces in my files: Harper’s, Counterpunch, The Weekly Standard, etc.

    • Affinity scams aren’t just for Jews. They work in any group with a strong group identity that believes members of the group look out for one another.

      (I know it’s not DG’s point that affinity scams are a Jewish only thing. I just wanted to clarify before anyone got confused).

      • Oh, absolutely true. I’m just pointing out that two of the biggest affinity scams have been run on Jews by Jews. It will take some real work to top Madoff – $51 billion isn’t just folding money.

        SPLC is the richest money-grubbing organization out there, bar none. 100’s of millions in assets. It’s why he got into the Direct Mail Marketing Ass’n hall of fame. When you examine their IRS form 990, it’s eye-opening how much money they’re pulling in from gullible donors. Their amazing percentage of the money used for “fundraising and administrative overhead” (over 85%) puts them in the “huge scam posing as a charity” category by anyone’s measure of bogus charities.

        There are affinity scams run on veterans, Catholics, people with handicapped kids, you name it. There’s no shortage of scum out there, trying to shake down good-hearted people for money. I’ve even seen affinity scams run on farmers & ranchers – but that’s a mighty thin population to scam money out of.

        I merely pointed out the Jewish angle because the SPLC is sooooo blatant about it. The founder, Morris Dees, had a Jewish father, but that doesn’t make him Jewish. The name “Dees” isn’t immediately recognized as Jewish. But (and this is the angle that has pissed me off because he does this so cynically) Dees makes sure the frontman in their fund-raising letters has an easily and obviously Jewish family name – Levin, Cohen, etc.

        Dees is scum, and he’s been scum for decades – but the mainstream press doesn’t want to call him out. The small investigative magazines, however, on both the right and left, have investigated Dees and the SPLC and found it to be a huge scam of an organization.

  27. Disband SPLC Communists for hire (better paid than Lenin himself). Then the ACLU, then the ABA, then the AMA. . .

  28. Here’s an idea. We need to level the playing field against the Southern Poverty Law Center. Take a page out of the Saul Alinsky leftist playbook Rule For Radicals and have a wealthy Conservative (Sheldon Adelson) or wealthy Libertarian (Peter Thiel) fund a “Southern Middle-Class Law Center”.

    Then list actual Hate groups like Antifa Anti-First Amendment, National Socialists, etc.

    At its founding in the 60’s, the SPLC used to provide an actual public good – they provided free legal representation to minorities who were getting shafted by the Democrat-run Jim Crow state & local governments here in the South. But then they morphed into the scam extortion operation that is now.

  29. What this FLAME DELETED fails to point out is that the only group with a permit to “peaceably assemble” there that day was the group carrying guns. Antifa and BLM came armed with knives, bats, rocks, and other weapons. Who got shot? No one. Who got shot at? No one. Who got assaulted by rocks, bats, knives, and the sort? That’s right my goyim anyone who isn’t a communist. So the “hate group” were the only ones to follow the law yet they’re somehow wrong for doing so? Excellent philosophy you FLAME DELETED

Comments are closed.