DOJ to Partner with the SPLC to Nullify the First Amendment


By Bob Bennett

When the White House announces an initiative, you can be sure it’s going to be either inimical to the United States, unconstitutional—or both.

Asst. AG John Carlin’s announcement on October 14th, that the Justice Department is creating a new position of “Domestic Terrorism Counsel,” shows signs of both. Its purpose is to combat the “real and present threat” of domestic extremism, he said. He ominously cited, as causes for concern: “anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs”—which begs the question: Just who will select those showing cause for concern?

His declaration is more ominous because he implied that the DOJ would be relying upon the Southern Policy Legal Center (SPLC) for help in this new mission. In fact, the announcement was co-hosted by SPLC. This raises the concern that the SPLC will help select those suspected of “despicable beliefs.”

The problem is, SPLC thinks racism, bigotry and other despicable beliefs are practiced mainly by conservative groups and Christian organizations. The latter appear on its online “Hate Groups” list because of their expressed belief that homosexuality is sinful—though they have a clear constitutional right to that expression. Even the law firm that represented Kim Davis is on the list.

The SPLC lists individuals as well, on their Extremists list—almost exclusively heads of Christian groups and terrorism experts, like Frank Gaffney and Robert Spencer. Their Women Against Islam/The Dirty Dozen list includes women most rational people would call heroines, like Pamela Geller, author Ann Coulter, Brigitte Gabriel, Laura Ingraham, Mideast expert Clare Lopez; in short, people who dare to inform us of Islam’s penchant for shootings, stabbings, bombings and other strategies to impose shariah law’s tenets on the non-Islamic world.

To avoid being placed on SPLC’s list, we’re expected to ignore these murderous acts, pretend they have not even a smidgen of connection to Islam.

Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) is Taqiyya

Asst. AG Carlin indicated that countering violent extremism would be the principle activity of the Domestic Terrorism Counsel. CVE is one of the White House’s favorite themes, because it appears to be something it is not. It looks like it’s meant to fight terrorism, but it’s the opposite of what it appears to be, making it taqiyya, a staple in the Islamic science of deception.

In the Obama lexicon, “Countering Violent Extremism” means reaching out to Muslim groups—notably groups “identified by the Justice Department as fronts for international terrorist organizations in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial,” getting their input on counterterrorism strategies and allowing them to blacklist FBI instructors and censure written material from government agencies, including deletion of over 800 pages from FBI manuals.

Thus do the agencies charged with protecting America collaborate with the jihadis to obscure their true nature. Such a purge actually occurred in 2011 under the Obama Administration, terrorism expert Patrick Poole reported in TheBlaze.

Poole also wrote, “Remarkably, some of the very organizations that the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties had partnered with had been identified by the Justice Department as fronts for international terrorist organizations in the Holy Land … trial …, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)… and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). At the time [of the purge], the president of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Majid, was serving on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.”

A document called, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” which was submitted in the Holy Land trial and stipulated to by the defense, contains a statement that makes it irrefutably clear the Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating our government in order to overthrow it:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The Memorandum included a list of “friends” who would “help teach Muslims ‘that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad….’” One of them was ISNA.

Clearly, under Obama’s CVE logic, the Nazis could’ve been defeated without firing a shot, if we had let the German-American Bund parse and approve every word in the U.S. Army Field Manuals. Put another way: we win the war on terror by becoming Vichy America.

CVE not only obscures the threat of jihadists, it also has the effect of silencing Islam’s critics, labeling them “Islamophobes.” Carlin said, in his speech:

“We are grateful to have the Southern Poverty Law Center … on our side, working with us to tackle some of today’s most pressing national security threats.”

His speech seemed to reassure that no one’s rights would be abridged:

“In America, harboring extremist views is not itself a crime, nor is the expression of even a hateful ideology or association with a hateful group.”

He added, “We do not investigate people for exercising their First Amendment rights, but we are obligated to investigate extremist groups and individuals when we have reason to believe they may be involved in the commission of a federal crime, including threatening violence.”

That last refers to one of the key exceptions to the First Amendment, as decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio. From

“The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

This exception to First Amendment protection is very similar to language in UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, adopted in March of 2011—the same year as the purge of FBI manuals. It was adopted with the full support of Obama and then-Secretary Clinton, working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the world’s largest group of Muslim nations. It calls on states to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” The language was clearly meant to dovetail with the Brandenburg exception to our First Amendment.

This resolution is not meant to protect Christians or Jews—whom Muslims slaughter without outcry from the UN. The OIC’s 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Article 22 had established that, in its member states:

“Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.” The Cairo Declaration was served on the UN as an official document.

Terror expert Clare Lopez wrote, in American Thinker, that on April 4, 2011 (a month after Resolution 16/18 was adopted), in their 4th Annual Report on Islamophobia, “the OIC declared that “Incitement is to be defined by applying the ‘test of consequences’ to speech. Under this twisted perversion of falsely ‘yelling “fire” in a crowded theater,’ it doesn’t matter what someone actually says—or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable.”

That reasoning would make Pamela Geller liable for any death or damage resulting from jihadists’ violent reaction to her cartoon contest.

The next step, called the Istanbul Process, is to get states to adopt laws criminalizing criticism of Islam. Several European countries, including France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands, have implemented laws to prosecute people for “vilifying” Islam.

But our revered First Amendment protects the right to speak the words that others despise. SCOTUS has reaffirmed that right again and again. Therefore, America is the ultimate prize in the Islamo-censors’ quest. If no one could speak or write about Islam’s less attractive features, it would be that much easier to “destroy our miserable house,” as the Memorandum quoted above commanded. But the First Amendment must be dismembered stealthily.

In July of 2011 Secretary Clinton, in a speech before the OIC, promised “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

And shaming is what SPLC does best, by listing people on its “Extremists” and “Hate Map,” based on its own ideology.

Now, ten years after the OIC launched its Program of Action to criminalize defamation of Islam, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in a September 29th keynote address before the UN, announced the “Strong Cities Network.” “Local communities and authorities are the most credible and persuasive voices to challenge violent extremism in all of its forms and manifestations in their local contexts,” she declared.

Two weeks later, Asst. AG John Carlin promised the Domestic Terrorism Counsel would work with SCN in countering violent extremism. “We must begin by doing more to empower those who are best-placed to affect change – parents, teachers, coaches, mental health service providers and others who know their communities best,” he said.

A number of the “Strong Cities” are subject to anti-Islamophobia laws. We can expect this initiative to extend that philosophy to America in our cities, towns and schools, making unconstitutional rules that must be argued one by one in the courts. And that’s where the battle to preserve our First Amendment rights must be fought.

Originally published by Instigator News Network



  1. And of course when Carlin announced that the Justice Department would be looking at “bigots”, our patriotic and constitutionally adept Congress Critters immediately called him on the carpet and informed him that the instant he opened an investigation or initiated any proceeding whatsover against a “bigot”, anywhere in the United States, he would be arrested by the House Sergeant-at-arms and brought before the Congress of the United States to answer the charge of using his office to deprive Americans of their civil liberties.

Leave a Reply