What stories are on your mind today?
I found this interesting. It’s about a month old, but still worth the read if you haven’t yet.
Who is the SPLC?
Everyone’s heard the name, most are familiar with their “work”. But who are they? This piece does a fine job of answering that question.
From American Thinker
“It should be noted that the not-for-profit SPLC ostensibly began its mission to help those who had been victimized by civil rights violations by filing suits on their behalf. In recent years, the SPLC greatly expanded its definition of civil rights and hate groups to the point where any organization that opposes the left’s favored causes risks being labeled a hate group by the SPLC. It has also moved away from suing on behalf of the aggrieved to raising awareness of the presence of “hate groups.” Most of all, for the last 35 years, it has become a real fundraising dynamo.”
“In 2010, Ken Silverstein, the author of the 2000 Harper’s article, noted that the SPLC had found a large new target: those immigration reform groups that supported almost anything more restrictive than amnesty and de facto open borders.”
“I also agreed to the invitation because, much like CIS, I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” (Which doesn’t mean that some of the groups it criticizes aren’t reprehensible.) In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people.”
“Perhaps if you personally know people who swear by the validity of the new SPLC hate map you may want to nicely inform them they are now charter members of the new secular version of the PTL Club and watch the reaction. If they get angry, remind them that this is not the assessment of the political right. The most damning quotes about Dees and the SPLC all come from former associates on the political left.”
Read more here
Wandering Views 
Thanks for the info, A J.
LikeLike
What’s on my mind? Our president missing over half his in-person daily briefing options, opting instead for a written report which he read alone. This included the day after the embassy attacks this week. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-alone-this-president-does-not-need-intel-briefers/2012/09/13/c11e1a52-fda5-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
LikeLike
Rosa,
Yeah, I couldn’t help but think the press would be a little rougher were it a Republican President skipping security breifings, especially in light of how relevant info on possible attacks seem to have been ignored. Or at the very least, not given the weight they deserved. But I’ve learned not to expect much from the press when it comes to pointing out the failures of the Obama admins foriegn policy. And make no mistake, this is a failure in a lot of areas.
LikeLike
I guess this group has decided to use the SPLC’s methods. After all, name calling and fiery rhetoric is so much easier than debating actual policy issues and the differences between the 2 parties policies.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/14/liberal-super-pac-calling-republicans-racist-more-effective-than-criticizing-policy/
“A top official at a liberal super PAC with the goal of eradicating tea partiers from Congress is telling activists that it’s more effective to label Republicans as racists than criticize their policies.
According to an audio recording obtained by The Daily Caller, Matthew “Mudcat” Arnold, the national campaign manager of the liberal CREDO super PAC, told a gathering of supporters in Aurora, Colo., on Sept. 8 that they’ve realized “policy did not move voters.”
He used Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King as an example.
“When we said that Steve King … is pro-life and believes in cutting Social Security and voted for the Ryan budget, no one cared,” Arnold said. “When we said Steve King’s a racist, Steve King believes that immigrants ought to be put in electric fences, people moved.””
Gee, maybe that’s because people realize that reform is necessary. When all else fails, playing to peoples emotions is all they can do.
LikeLike
Rosa, I remember how they criticized Condoleeza Rice for buying shoes during the Katrina crisis.
LikeLike
The SPLC is a very influential group in law enforcement circles. They provide “research” to investigators who monitor and track gang activity. I used to receive their flyers and saw that their bias against conservative Christians was very noticeable. What initially raised the red flag for me was when I noticed that Dr Dobson was considered a dangerous radical by them and he and his activities were placed on their “Watch List”. In my opinion they recklessly label and perform character assassination on anyone who disagrees with their political opinions on homosexuality, gay marriage or immigration issues. Now a number of agencies use their materials in training new investigators, so unfortunately they are gaining even more credibility.
LikeLike
The reason I long try to watch MSNBC is because the last two times I tried the subject was “people who don’t vote for Obama are racists”.
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting read on what some in the foriegn press are saying about the latest flare up in the Mid East. Some see it as a failure of Obama’s foriegn policy positions, as do I.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-press-review-on-middle-east-violence-against-us-embassies-a-855835.html
“The conservative Die Welt writes:
“US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It’s a bitter outcome for Obama.”
“Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. In practice, the policies of the Obama administration in the region were not as naive as they may have seemed at times, and the Americans have always been much more involved in the Middle East than the passive Europeans. But Washington has provided the image of a distracted superpower in the process of decline to the societies there. This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali.”
“One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America’s deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check.””
LikeLike
Non-intervention. Now, as much as ever.
LikeLike
Another US Embassy has been attacked and is burning according to Reuters. This time in Tunisia.
Also bomb threats at the U of Texas and North Dakota State University.
https://twitter.com/Reuters?tw_i=246613253134880768&tw_e=screenname&tw_p=tweetembed
LikeLike
Well, this looks like it’ll be a busy news day. It’s already off to a wild start.
Embassy attacks, bomb threats, riots.
Just when you thought it was safe …
LikeLike
Or not. I haven’t thought it was safer ever since Obama’s apology tour. And then even less safe when his foreign policy included snubbing our allies and kissing up to oppressive dictators. And then he helped destabilize Egypt and Libya (and others). I didn’t think it was safe at all…
LikeLike
Support for democratic reform really began as a response to 9-11 and was initially called the freedom agenda. The thinking behind it, which Predident Obama has basically carried on is that democracy that holds leaders accountable will eventually improve the situation. This is a long, long term strategy and there will be issues like we are seeing now if it is the path our country stays on. The alternative would be contnuing the old policy of supporting fairly brutal dictators but who also support us. The freedom agenda had the virtue of not having been tried so we’ll see how it turns out. As the Chinese curse says, we live in interesting times.
LikeLike
I think a third (and best) option is far less involvement in the first place, CB.
LikeLike
Solar
I’ve not seen a good isolationist plan that also provides security for American interests. Perhaps you know of one?
LikeLike
Who said anything about isolationism?
LikeLike
Solar,
Noninterventionist then if it makes you more comfortable. Let’s hear it.
LikeLike
CB, I’d like to give fairly brutal dictators another chance.
LikeLike
CB, I’m tempted to request that you first provide me just a couple specific, if hypothetical, examples of what evils could conceivably come about because of Mitt Romney’s (pretty garden variety) comments, but it doesn’t look like you’re interested in going there, even though that request is more amenable to a concrete response.
But regarding a non-interventionist “plan,” what, specifically, are you asking *about*? The notion (as I’m sure you know) is essentially that we not “support” any country, not fight any wars on any foreign country’s behalf and only engage in wars of self-defense, to retain universal (or nearly so) diplomatic and economic relations with all countries willing to do so with us, and the like. As I thought you were alluding above, the things we’re trying *right now,* and those things we’ve already tried, don’t seem to have been particularly effective in “providing security for American interests.”
LikeLike
Solar
So you would rip up NATO? The alliance with Israel? Any and all attempts to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons? Would that be the natural result of a non-interventionist plan?
On Gov. Romney, sorry the comment was not garden variety. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” That was his press release. It was not true when it was released and is not true today. What harm could this kind of tomfoolery cause — I had that conversation with you and commented that with a fluid situation, it is hard to know. If you wish to be obtuse about that, please feel free.
But as you seem to imply that the non-interventionist tack is the tack to take, I would expect at least some superficial knowledge about what that plan would entail. Which treaties are gone? Is the UN disbanded? As America withdraws troop presence around the globe what happens to the balance of power, particularly in Asia? That kind of thing. On the other hand maybe it’d be better just to do as you suggest with no idea of what could happen on the other end of it, rather like the Governor making his fact free commentary the day our Ambassador died.
LikeLike
To your first paragraph: all “Yes.” I don’t suggest we do all that *tomorrow,* but yes.
It doesn’t matter how “fluid” the situation is, you could certainly still provide some hypothetical–who cares whether we disagree about the nature of Romney’s comments, whether they’re garden variety or not, so no need for you to apologize about that. You just can’t provide any scenario where they make any difference in anything. Just a hypothetical, please?
We can’t “disband” the UN, we can withdraw. You talk like our presence all over the place has created paradise. It’s funny how people assume the role of “realist” when pooh poohing non-interventionists; like “reality” is some great peaceful bliss!
LikeLike
Solar
Really? Where have I made the case that our presence all over the place has created paradise? Hint: You’ll have a hard time answering that because I haven’t made that case.
On your insistence that you must have a hypothetical — I guess the contrast between Reagan and Romney was not enough for you and keep getting the feeling that you are being willfully obtuse on the point. So, what the heck. The Administration has repeatedly condemned the film while also condemning the violence and stating that the film is no justification for violence — the hope is that eventually that message might sink in. Enter Gov Romney with his statement on apology which will make most people in the world understand quite well that the Administration is not apologizing — those words by Romney add fuel to the fire. It’s quite possible that it has added to the impetus to march on more embassies. That is a hypothetical because we don’t know all of the facts.
So now that you have an answer, let’s hear how the third way you describe would be implemented and how that third way would better protect American interests.
LikeLike
CB: When you dismiss non-interventionism because, hey, there might be headaches in the world, or because it raises a certain set of difficulties, it’s disingenuous to pretend those same difficulties don’t exist *right* *now.*
To your hypothetical: you write the words, “The Administration has repeatedly condemned the film while also condemning the violence and stating that the film is no justification for violence — the hope is that eventually that message might sink in.”
I’m the non-interventionist here, and I don’t share some of the same views as other “conservatives” regarding the prospect of Muslim radicalism spreading all over the place, but to your comment, all I can say is LOL. “Sink in”? Do you suppose the same minds we want our message to “sink in” to would also be affected by our “strongly condemning” what they do? If so, we live in different realities. Likewise, when you suggest impetus has been added to march on more embassies. How do you figure that works? A group of radical Muslims are hanging out bored one morning, then one of them catches a headline with Romney’s words, which stirs them up into a frenzy? No, seriously, how does it work? Just *saying* his words adds fuel to the fire begs the question. The fire is saturated with fuel, and even this silly movie added nothing to it.
Non-interventionism would better protect American interests. “Better” isn’t saying much, anymore. We intervened heavily in Egypt, sinking huge amounts of foreign aid. I think things could be “better” there, don’t you? And I think it’s foolish to assume they’d be worse had we not been involved. Most of the countries in the ME would be essentially indifferent if we hadn’t been so heavily involved for the past 60 yrs. Our support for Israel is nearly blind. That makes people dislike us a lot more than a few statements candidates make during a campaign.
We’ve sent unimaginable amounts of money over there–all over the map over there. What might we have done with that money, instead? We might have pursued a more self-sustainable energy resource, who knows? But why do we need to support one dictator for X years on the assumption that America’s interests are best protected that way? The *reality* has turned out quite the opposite.
LikeLike