[HoweverComma]

Sorry, son.

My caveat is to put BOTH sides on the same footing--i.e., if you're demanding a blanket ban on one source because you CLAIM they only do baseless smears, then you have to accept a similar blanket ban on americanpatrol for any reason that comes to mind, as long as there is a shred of fact to back it.

Actually, it's interesting how much you kvetch about Morris Dees, and give Glenn Spencer a pass--when, from my perspective, they are in the same line of business (said business being the business of loudly trumpeting alarming stuff to their audiences and hustling donations from said audience).

Glenn Spencer makes a living from American Patrol. Just as much as any other interest group that is crying loudly about a particular problem, you have to ask (if you're being honest) what the motivation is. It's why I'm not a fan of single-issue organizations--because whatever the motivation WAS for forming the group, the leadership and staff usually want to perpetuate the organization's existence, because job-hunting is painful.

The NAACP will lose truckloads of money if racial issues disappear from the public radar screen; that explains why they keep finding "new" problems allegedly connected to "racism."

Groups devoted to "fighting poverty" will lose a ton of money if poverty really does decline significantly, so they are the "usual suspects" seeking to redefine poverty upward (even as they redefine "the rich" downward when it comes demanding more money from taxpayers--you gotta wonder what these idiots will do when the definition of rich and poor overlap significantly).

Groups like the SPLC that are dedicated to "fighting racism" (as opposed to merely redirecting racism like the NAACP) would go through a financial calamity if the white supremacist groups ever shut down; therefore, it doesn't surprise me that the SPLC has been caught subsidizing such groups.

Groups that are built solely around ending illegal immigration gain a vested interest in keeping illegal immigration an ongoing concern. This is basic organizational psychology. Once the perpetuation of the organization's existence becomes the prime concern, these organizations have a perverse incentive in getting themselves onto the SPLC s**t list, too, because it's obvious that being there lends them credibility in the eyes of some folks, while simultaneously making it less likely that the problem will go away, because anyone talking about it is going to get painted as a racist wingnut.

I just want the damn troops on the border yesterday. But as long as we have activist organizations with budgets and payrolls devoted to the issue, we're not going to get it solved.

[Spiff]

Just because the NAACP and the SPLC engage in perpetuation of their victim status to keep the cashing flowing does not mean that there is an ounce of proof that other organizations are doing it.

So...

Allegation #3: Glenn Spencer and American Patrol are allegedly engaging in activites counter to their announced goals in order to intentionally continue the border invasion in perpetuity allowing them to gather more and more donations for Glenn Spencer's personal use.

Proof: The NAACP, SPLC, and other race-baiting organizations have historically engaged in such schemes so HoweverComma says that Glenn Spencer and American Patrol must also be doing it by sheer fact that they are an organization that accepts donations from the public to pay for their activites. No solid evidence of Spencer or American Patrol actually engaging in these activities is provided.

On a side note, I'm going to venture a guess that you hate "organized religion" for similar reasons.