It appears that Hamas’ latest bout of intractability has finally broken its patron’s back. After 20 years, Qatar is pulling its investment in the terror group. According to my sources, Doha will no longer play the role of host and negotiator, and most of Hamas’ leadership has… pic.twitter.com/ofIyhojCPj
The gist of it is that Hamas’ sponsor Qatar is withdrawing some of its support from Hamas, due to Hamas’ tepid response to the Iran War in which Iran decided on the brilliant move to attack Qatar.
It was early in Trump’s first term that I noticed people talking about killing Trump. These were people I knew and had known for five decades or more. I’d never talked about politics before with these people, and I hadn’t been aware that they’d had any especially deeply-held feelings about politics. But all of a sudden, each of them stated in a casual manner that they wanted Trump killed.
It was the casual manner that got me. Neither knew my political leanings, but it was assumed that I agreed with them – didn’t everyone who didn’t sport a tail, horns, and a swastika tattoo? With the first person I was so stunned I said nothing. But later, with the second person, I challenged him – to no avail.
You’ve probably seen similar public statements from Trump-haters over the years – on TV and on social media, for example. It’s become standard. In the last year I’ve heard it again from two different friends, each of them people I’ve known for many years and who’ve never spoken this way before. Neither have any history of being leftist firebrands and in fact each have long been political moderates.
But not on the topic of Trump, apparently. The first was over the phone, and my long-time friend said that if she ever was given a terminal diagnosis she would try to kill Trump. This seemed only slightly tongue-in-cheek and deeply unfunny. She went on to vent quite a bit on how much she hated him. My response was that I hope she never receives a terminal diagnosis.
The most recent person to express this was even more disturbing. This was from an old friend who’s one of the most mild-mannered people I know – ordinarily. We were having lunch and catching up, since I hadn’t seen him in a long while, and towards the end of the meal he said that if he had a rifle (which he doesn’t) and if Trump came anywhere on his property (which Trump won’t) he would kill him. With the previous people saying this, they’d only given very general reasons why; I guess they thought his evil was so very obvious it needed no explanation. But this time I asked him why, and his answer stunned me: it was that Trump wasn’t even human. This was said with vehemence and a kind of fervor and certainty that indicated a very deeply held belief.
Again, I asked why he said that. I wish I could remember his exact words, but it was something to the effect that it was obvious just by looking at him – that he cared about no one and nothing but himself, and that he didn’t love America but hated it. He offered no particular evidence and I didn’t press it; to pursue the conversation was going to be counterproductive. This was a person who already knew my general politics, but I think he assumed that despite being on the right that I, as a moral and upright person, would be a Trump-hater too.
There are a great many people like this, and their sentiments are considered perfectly okay and even moral by other people just like them, people I would never have described as political activists or leftists, but who want Trump dead and probably are surrounded by others who want him dead too. The sentiment has been mainstreamed, and it happened quite early in Trump’s first term although it’s only gotten worse..
A couple of days before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Jimmy Kimmel did a sketch about the coming festivities. It was supposedly funny, and there certainly were plenty of people or bots in the comments to this video who seem to think it was indeed funny. Here are a few seconds that got a lot of attention in retrospect, for obvious reasons:
“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy- his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America.” …
“People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him,” she said. “Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.”
Good luck with that; I don’t think it’s going to happen. There’s an audience for it and an appetite for it, and although Kimmel doesn’t have high ratings I don’t see them pulling him.
Last night I came across the following video and clicked on it because of the title. I kept watching it because it periodically featured people – I believe mostly from TikTok? – expressing the most outrageous death wishes on Trump, with a venom that is extraordinary and no sense of needing to hide their sentiments. For example, two very short segments:
Those aren’t even the worst ones. Here’s the whole thing, in case you’re interested:
There’s plenty more where that came from. What’s happened is not just a norming of such behavior – although there’s that – but a message that it’s not only okay but that’s it’s cool and virtuous, something of which to be proud.
It spreads like a contagion. Some people are more vulnerable to it than others, but I couldn’t have predicted in advance who among my friends would be most vulnerable to it. I also have plenty of friends and relatives who are Democrats and who detest Trump, but at least I’ve never heard them wish him dead.
I heard the news of the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shortly after it happened – hot off the press, as it were. First I saw photos of Trump, then Vance, and I thought “Oh wow; Vance was there too.” Almost immediately after that I saw a photo of Rubio, and thought with growing alarm: “Rubio too?”
So right at the outset I wondered how many people in the line of succession were there at once, and I found this:
At least twelve of the cabinet officers at the top of the line of succession for the presidency were reportedly in attendance at the 2026 White House Correspondents Dinner when shots rang out and President Trump was rushed from the stage.
The line of succession refers to who becomes responsible for carrying out the duties of the office of the president if the president is no longer able to serve. …
The line of succession is listed below along with the name of who currently holds the position and whether it is known if they were in attendance at the dinner.
1. Vice President – JD Vance – Was in attendance
2. Speaker of the House – Mike Johnson – Was in attendance
3. President Pro Tempore of the Senate – Chuck Grassley – Unknown
4. Secretary of State – Marco Rubio – Was in attendance
5. Secretary of the Treasury – Scott Bessent – Was in attendance
6. Secretary of Defense – Pete Hegseth – Was in attendance
7. Attorney General – Todd Blanche (acting) – Was in attendance
8. Secretary of the Interior – Doug Burgum – Was in attendance
9. Secretary of Agriculture – Brooke Rollins – Unknown
10. Secretary of Commerce – Howard Lutnick – Unknown
11. Secretary of Labor – Keith Sonderling (acting)- Unknown
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services – Robert Kennedy Jr. – Was in attendance
13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – Scott Turner – Unknown
14. Secretary of Transportation – Sean Duffy – Was in attendance
“>this one
15. Secretary of Energy – Chris Wright – Was in attendance
16. Secretary of Education – Linda McMahon – Was in attendance
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Douglas Collins – Unknown
18. Secretary of Homeland Security – Markwayne Mullin – Was in Attendance
So, had the shooter been far more successful, we might have had a 92-year-old President Grassley.
Fortunately no one was hurt and the incident will be only a footnote. But the attendance of so many high officials at one venue – particularly one that is public – dictated an extremely high level of security that was not met. This wasn’t business-as-usual even for a presidential appearance; this was of a higher level even than that.
When I say the security level was not met for such an event, I’m also relying on eyewitnesses. I’ve read several eyewitness accounts that very much agree with this one from attendee Stephen Moore, who is an economist:
I had anticipated a very long security line and about an hour wait to enter the hotel. I brought my paper ticket and my passport identification.
To my surprise the security was lax, to put it lightly. Wearing my tux, I walked in the front door by flashing the paper ticket. There was no code to be scanned and I never once was asked for my ID.
The room was packed at 7pm when President Trump entered to shallow applause. What shocked me was that, after the National Anthem and military color guard, Trump and the First Lady sat for dinner front and center in front of 2500 people. That didn’t strike me as safe or advisable. For a sniper, God forbid, it seemed he was a sitting duck.
It also struck me that the President, the VP and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson were all in attendance. I am told five of the six in succession to the presidency were there. …
Trump was right in praising the agents on site were amazing in keeping us safe and restoring order.
But this was clearly a major security breakdown on multiple levels. It was easier to get into the Hilton to see the president and to get 30 feet from him than to attend a Wizards basketball game down the street.
As I said, I’ve read very similar observations from others. I’ll also add something I’ve written before, which is that for quite a while after 9/11, when I stayed in hotels in a few big cities, there were stringent ID checks and metal detectors going in or out and only one or two entrances were even open. These were ordinary large hotels with no special functions going on.
The WH Correspondents’ Dinner was a one-night event, but it’s also obvious that anyone wanting to attack might come there earlier to check in. So the security would need not to just be the day of, but at least a day or two earlier. Obviously, security can’t be perfect and it’s a judgment call when the enhanced security would begin. But I continue to believe that some very obvious precautions were not taken, considering the unusual nature of the get-together.
In previous years, of course, it had occurred without incident. But Trump had never attended as president during his first term, and it is Trump and his aides who are targets even more than previous administrations. That is obvious.
I titled last night’s post, “I guess the security was effective at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.” That was an initial response to the fact that no one was killed – not even the shooter, who was taken down alive and well. But of course, the earlier security had to have been abominable for anyone to get as far as would-be assassin Cole Tomas Allen did.
And, since Allen helpfully sent his family a manifesto of sorts ten minutes before he started his attack, we have it straight from the horse’s mouth, if this document is authentic (and I have no reason to believe it’s not). The relevant excerpt:
Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.
Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.
What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.
No damn security.
Not in transport.
Not in the hotel.
Not in the event.
Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.
I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.
The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.
Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.
Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed shit.
Actually insane.
Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.
Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.
Even before I read that, it had become crystal clear that although security was good at the very endpoint, it was disgraceful prior to that. As with earlier incidents such as Butler, it is hard to fathom what could explain such overwhelming negligence. Some say that security forces’ incompetence is purposeful and out of malice towards Trump, and although I do not think it’s that I can see why people would believe it.
That quote I gave comes at the end of the shooter’s document. There’s much much more earlier on, describing the reasons that he feels he must do this. I plan to write more on the subject either tonight or tomorrow. But right now I’ll just say that several things are apparent.
The first is that Allen is intelligent. The second is that he’s not at all crazy. The third is that his letter of explanation reads exactly like the sort of thing we see every day, many times over, on “X” or other social media – what has become almost garden-variety hatred of Trump and accusations that he is evil and does evil (pedophile, rapist, traitor). Sound familiar? It should; it’s commonplace commentary on MS NOW (once MSNBC) and other leftist stations and talk shows, in the halls of academe, in social gatherings, and on the aforementioned social media. I know many perfectly ordinary people who are probably nodding along now with what Allen wrote, wishing he had succeeded. I predict he will become a hero to millions, just as Mangione has but even more – except for the fact that Allen was unsuccessful. But the effort will be applauded.
I hold Allen responsible for his actions. But it is tragic and outrageous that he has been fed propaganda so relentless and so vile that he felt that what he was planning to do was something noble and good: taking out the evil empire of Trump. His targets seem to have been the whole administration.
He also says something quite prescient:
Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*
One Secret Service agent was hit in the chest but was wearing body armor and will survive.
NOTE: Here is a critique of the abominable security measures. I think the average child could have designed something better. It is mindboggling.
On March 30, 1981, Ronald Reagan, the president of the United States, was shot and wounded by John Hinckley Jr. in Washington, D.C., as Reagan was returning to his limousine after a speaking engagement at the Washington Hilton hotel.
Same hotel 45 years earlier. Reagan was very seriously wounded but survived after surgery. Another big difference, however, was that although there was plenty of hatred towards Reagan, that’s not what motivated Hinckley, who was actually fairly crazy and shot Reagan because Hinckley had become convinced that assassinating a huge public figure would impress Jodie Foster, with whom he was obsessed. Earlier, Hinckley had considered killing President Carter.
President Donald Trump never left the White House Correspondents’ Dinner venue and remained nearby following the security scare that briefly disrupted the event, Fox News can confirm.
Trump was moved to a secure holding area as a precaution and “wants the show to go on,” according to Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich.
Sources familiar with the situation told Fox News an individual attempted to get through security screening with a gun but was stopped by Secret Service before entering the ballroom. The suspect has since been taken offsite.
Apparently shots were fired, but not in the room where the even was being held. Is the would-be assailant alive?
It must have been quite a scene, one we could have done without:
Attendees were eating a spring pea and burrata salad, and waiters began preparing to bring out the next course when a security detail appeared on the ballroom floor and yelled for everyone to get down. Journalists in gowns and tuxedos ducked near tables as wine splattered onto white tablecloths and glasses clinked in the hurry to seek safety.
Armed security burst through the doors of the ballroom and raced toward the dias where Trump sat as attendees ducked or crouched under tables. At one point, someone in the room shouted, “USA!”
Trump said that a “shooter has been apprehended” in a post to Truth Social …
Sounds as though the shooter is alive, but I assume more information will be forthcoming.
The event was held at the Washington Hilton, which may explain how it is that the shooter got that far, if other guests were permitted in other parts of the hotel. Vance was also at the dinner, as was Rubio. This was also Trump’s first time attending the dinner as president.
Someone apparently thought it was a target-rich environment. I’m extremely glad no one was hurt.
UPDATE 12:10 AM
The Daily Mail has a series of articles and photos.
The president confirmed that the suspect has been apprehended and that a Secret Service agent wearing a protective vest was shot, but is in ‘great shape.’
‘Tonight, they had everything covered very quickly. And he was fast. He was running full blast, and they got him before they got any further,’ the president said of the shooting.
Cole Tomas Allen, 31, from Torrance, California near LA is the alleged shooter who opened fire at the Washington Hilton on Saturday night.
The educator from the Los Angeles area was quickly apprehended by law enforcement moments after breaching a security checkpoint. He faces firearms and assault charges.
Police revealed the suspect had a number of weapons on him including a shotgun, handgun and multiple knives.
President Trump shared a stunning image shortly after the shooting, showing the suspect shirtless and lying face down on the carpet. Law enforcement confirmed he was not struck by gunfire while being stopped but has since been taken to the hospital for evaluation. [see photo at link, along with many other photos]
The suspect appears to be a young black or Hispanic man.
One of the many people in attendance was Erika Kirk, who was understandably visibly upset by the frightening incident.
I have to say it’s practically a miracle that no one was killed. The suspect was well-armed, and he was fast:
And typical responses to the YouTube video; I didn’t have to search for them, they were right up there:
@CuttinBlade
16 minutes ago
You cannot believe anything that you see or hear coming from the Trump administration
@Ag23445
3 minutes ago
Just another false flag because his ratings are down. We still haven’t seen close-up damage of his ear from the supposed gunshot wound. They sure shut those investigations down quick as well.
@blkvixon
31 seconds ago
Did this to distract the first fake assassination and bring attention to the Ballroom
Allen lists his employment as a teacher in a $25 donation to Kamala Harris in 2024. He is registered to vote in California as “no party preference.”
His LinkedIn profile indicates he’s been a part-time teacher at C2 Education in Torrance, California. C2 is a national tutoring and college counseling provider.
Allen posted on LinkedIn he received his bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from Caltech in 2017 and his master’s degree in computer science from California State University-Dominguez Hills in 2025. …
In December 2024, Allen’s employer C2 named him the Teacher of the Month and posted a photo on the group’s social media.
Before that job, Allen listed his employment as a self-employed video game developer. The PC game he developed was listed on the website Steam for download tied to his name.
Before that, Allen says he worked for a year as an engineer at IJK Controls based on South Pasadena. And before that he was a teaching assistant at California Institute of Technology in Los Angeles.
UPDATE 4/26 2:40 PM
I’ve written a new post on the subject that can be found here.
Here’s a very short clip that compares Natalia Osipova with Maya Plisetskaya. It’s from the ballet Laurencia. The Bolshoi-trained Osipova is a very fine dancer, still performing at 39. Plisetskaya was a star of the past who had her heyday in the late 1950s, 1960s, and part of the 1970s. Both are known for their drama and intensity, but their differing techniques reflect the different times in which they danced, with Osipova featuring today’s high extensions and nearly-perfect lines.
Osipova may come closer than most dancers of today do to Plisetskaya’s athletic jumping and “attack,” and in fact may surpass her jumps in height. But I prefer Plisetskaya. Of course, every dancer is different and we don’t want duplicates – although I think I’d make an exception in the case of Plisetskaya.
There is something very naturalistic in Plisetskaya’s movement and flow, although ballet choreography is anything but natural. Nevertheless, she seems to be free in her movements, departing from strict style in order to convey something of the character’s personality. Here, that something is joyful abandon, and I think the key to what she does – and what Osipova does not do – is that little head and upper body dip that Plisetskaya makes as she runs into her preparation for the leap. Osipova keeps her regal ballet posture right through, and it gives the movement a somewhat stilted although beautiful effect. It’s subtle, but that’s what I see.
There are longer clips of each dancer doing the same variation. You might notice other things – for example, as is very common with today’s dancers, Osipova dances somewhat more slowly, which I think takes away from the dramatic effect but allows for more posing and her technical perfection as well as her jump’s height
Here’s Plisetskaya in a somewhat longer clip that shows more of her acting ability and upper body freedom and fluidity; the variation in question begins at 3:47:
We all know that politicians lie. Maybe all politicians, or maybe not. But I think we’re on safe ground in saying that most do.
They typically lie about any number of things, exaggerating their accomplishments and minimizing their flaws. The degree to which they are sexually faithful to a spouse would be a favorite arena for mendacity. They might lie about their financial dealings. You know, the usual.
They also might “flip flop” on issues. You don’t hear that term too much these days, but it used to be a big deal – for example, during Kerry’s presidential run.
But it wasn’t until Obama’s candidacy that I noticed a person running for US high office who didn’t just flip-flop but lied about his basic political orientation. He was and remains a dedicated leftist, but he covered that up to a great extent when he was running for office in 2008. He ran as more of a centrist and as a racial healer, but he was neither. With the help of a fawning and compliant press, hints that he was actually a leftist (Ayers and Wright and Alinsky connections, for example, or what “community organizer” actually meant) were covered up or explained in the most benign terms possible.
I wrote about it at the time: for example, here. There were certainly strong hints; what does “fundamentally transform” mean?
Being on the left doesn’t mean you must lie about who you are and what you intend to do. For example, it seems to me that Bernie Sanders has been fairly upfront about his leftist orientation and intentions. But Sanders became a senator by running in Vermont, where such positions didn’t really hurt him, and by the time he ran for national office he couldn’t have covered his history up if he’d tried. Obama had less of a track record, although it was there for those who really looked.
There is a marked difference between the radicals of the Sixties and the radical movement Obama is part of. In the Sixties, as radicals we said what we thought and blurted out what we wanted. We wanted a revolution, and we wanted it now. It was actually very decent of us to warn others as to what we intended. But because we blurted out our goal, we didn’t get very far. Americans were onto us. Those who remained on the left when the Sixties were over, learned from their experience. They learned to lie. The strategy of the lie is progressives’ new gospel. It is what the progressive bible – Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – is all about. Alinsky is the acknowledged political mentor to Obama and Hillary, to the service and teacher unions, and to the progressive rank and file. Alinsky understood the mistake Sixties’ radicals had made. His message to this generation is easily summed up: Don’t telegraph your goals; infiltrate their institutions and subvert them; moral principles are disposable fictions; the end justifies the means; and never forget that your political goal is always power.
An SDS radical wrote in the Sixties: “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” The Alinsky version is this: The issue is never the issue; the issue is always power: How to wring power out of the democratic process, how turn the process into an instrument of progressive control. How to use it to fundamentally transform the United States of America – which is exactly what Barack Obama warned he would do on the eve of his election.
Horowitz knew whereof he spoke, having been a 1960s radical who later turned to the right. But most people in the US didn’t know what Horowitz knew, and they were fooled by Obama – just as they recently were fooled by Abigail Spanberger. The latter phenomenon is what has gotten me to reminisce about the topic:
It works.
NOTE: The Ayatollah Khomenei was not a leftist, but he operated like one in this sense. I wrote this 2016 post on the subject. An excerpt:
Just as an example, in November of 1978 [Khomeini] said, “Personal desire, age, and my health do not allow me to personally have a role in running the country after the fall of the current system.” Then on his return to Iran about a year later: “I will strike with my fists at the mouths of this government. From now on it is I who will name the government.”
Here’s another later quote:
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?…Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!”
Witcoff and Kushner can unpack their bags. Then again, maybe they always keep an Islamabad bag packed, just in case. But another round of talks with Iran seems like a waste of jet fuel at this point, so the cancellation appears wise.
The gist of what I’m been reading lately – whether it is correct or incorrect – says that the economic screws we’ve been tightening on Iran right now seem to be having the desired effect:
Iran is scrambling to get a massive crude carrier to Kharg Island, in a sign that President Trump’s blockade is bringing the regime’s oil-critical hub — which controls roughly 90% of Iranian crude oil exports — to the brink, according to a report.
Tehran has been forced to take a 30-year-old oil tanker, Nasha, out of retirement as Kharg Island nears its maximum onshore capacity, Gulf News reported Friday.
The vessel, which has been anchored empty for the past several years, is being revived as floating storage for Iran’s teeming crude supply, the outlet reported. …
The frantic move comes as Kharg Island’s remaining spare storage could fill up in just 12 to 13 days, with Iran’s net oil inflow running around 1 million barrels per day, analysts told Gulf News. …
Trump threatened to finish the war “militarily with the other 25% of the targets” if Iranian leaders “don’t want to make a deal,” he warned Thursday.
I doubt he’ll do more bombing if he thinks Iran really is on the brink of economic collapse in a way that threatens the regime. The oil reserves are a big big deal in this sense. The link I just gave is to a CNN article which I chose because it offers a relatively gloomy estimate for amount of time it will take; other source say it would be shorter, a matter of weeks. But the principle is the same:
If the country cannot shift the millions of barrels of oil it produces daily, it could be forced to cut production. Crude oil and petroleum product exports are Iran’s primary source of foreign currency.
Iran could probably sustain current oil production for another two to three months before storage issues become “a significant consideration,” Batmanghelidj said.
Iran also still has plenty of oil storage space remaining onshore, shipping analytics firm Kpler said, noting it has almost 30 million barrels of headroom, which means it’s still weeks away from its limit.
It could even push storage capacity longer if it finds other methods of offloading the stored oil.
One option Iran is exploring is using its retired crude tankers.
The CNN article omits this sort of thing about what “shutting down” might actually mean:
This is a well-known technical challenge in petroleum engineering. If Iran were to deliberately curtail or shut in production across its major fields, water infiltration (also called water influx or water encroachment) would be a serious and potentially irreversible problem. Here’s why:
The Core Mechanics
Most of Iran’s giant fields — Ahvaz, Gachsaran, Marun, Aghajari — are carbonate reservoirs under natural water drive. Aquifers underlying or flanking the reservoir rock are under pressure, and they push water upward into the pore space as oil is produced. When you stop producing oil, you remove the pressure sink that was keeping water at bay. The aquifer doesn’t stop — it keeps pushing.
Much more of the technical stuff can be found at the link to the tweet. Suffice to say it probably would be a major, perhaps permanent, problem.
Trump and Netanyahu have the task of balancing harm to the current regime against harm to the people of a future Iran. They want to maximize the former and minimize the latter, if possible.
Once upon a time, long long ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) actually did decent work in the field of civil rights. But for a long long time now it’s functioned as a partisan finger-pointer to effectively target many ordinary groups and people on the right, listing them as racist hate groups. The SPLC somehow came to be widely considered the authority on this – why or how I don’t know, but it was easy to see it had happened.
That’s why the recent DOJ indictment of the group is so potentially important and certainly eye-opening, although the left will almost undoubtedly continue to defend them and label the whole thing as merely paying “informants.” I already wrote about the indictment in this post, including a link to the indictment and to the press conference announcing it. So I won’t go over that ground again here, except to say that the charges are serious and go way beyond paying informants.
Jacobson said he believes the indictment is extremely detailed, names names, and describes conduct that is far more specific and far more serious than the crisis management line SPLC has been feeding to sympathetic media, which is that they were simply paying informants the way any organization fighting hate would do. He said the indictment describes shell companies, fictitious accounts, suspicious money transfers that triggered bank fraud detection systems, and alleged lies told to banks when those systems flagged the transactions. That is not a description of routine informant payments. It is a description of a deliberate financial concealment structure, and the bank fraud charges reflect that distinction.
His first piece on SPLC appeared in 2009, and by 2010 he had already identified what he described as a pattern of fabricating or vastly inflating the existence of hate groups for fundraising purposes. He investigated a Ku Klux Klan group that SPLC had listed on its hate map in Rhode Island, where he is from, and found no evidence the group existed. He called the state police hate crimes unit, which also said it had no knowledge of any such group. The same thing happened in 2012 with a neo-Nazi group SPLC listed in Rhode Island. He said over the following fifteen years he wrote nearly fifty pieces documenting how SPLC’s hate map, which is its primary fundraising tool, was built on inflated and in some cases apparently invented groups. …
Jacobson said SPLC functioned essentially as a domestic political terrorist organization in the sense that landing on its list could be career-ending for individuals and company-ending for organizations, and that the terror the list created was amplified by the corporate partners who agreed to use SPLC designations as the basis for deplatforming decisions. He described being told by a client relationship management platform that it would expel his organization if it appeared on the SPLC list, calling that a vivid illustration of how the SPLC’s list functioned as a private extortion mechanism backed by the implicit threat of corporate enforcement. He said Amazon, PayPal, and other major companies participated in that enforcement network, and that the roughly eight hundred million dollars in total assets SPLC is believed to have accumulated could not have been built without significant support from corporate America alongside the celebrity and foundation donors who have received more attention.
He offered an analogy he said is not perfect but captures the essential fraud: it is like taking your car to a mechanic for a state inspection, being told something is broken and being charged to fix it, without being told the mechanic broke it himself. SPLC allegedly created or supported the very hate it was fundraising to combat, did not disclose that to donors, and pocketed the contributions. An arsonist collecting money to put out fires he set is another version of the same scheme …
More at the link.
Another way to look at it is this classic take from Iowahawk, written ten years ago. It’s not specifically about the SPLC, but it certainly applies to it:
1. Target a respected institution 2. Kill & clean it 3. Wear it as a skin suit, while demanding respect
It is likely that the SPLC is not alone in this sort of practice of fundraising off its own arson. It may be the most egregious, however, and possibly the most influential. The left will continue to make excuses and frame it as “Republicans pounce” and they may even work for Democrat voters. But these are nevertheless some fascinating developments, and the case will be tried in Alabama rather than DC or New York.
NOTE: Here’s an article about one instance of the SPLC’s threats. Also, I noticed in the video of the indictment announcement, that Blanche said this was not a new investigation, and that it had been opened quite a while earlier but stopped at some point during the Biden administration (I’ve cued up the brief segment):
Hmmm.
I also found this comment somewhere:
What always enraged me about the SPLC was how the organization intentionally used its misleading name and initials to fool imany donors who thought they were sending money to Martin Luther King’s SCLC, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Even today, many geriatric libs probably think both groups are the same.
If you’ve been following the news on the recent Virginia redistricting referendum, you know that a lower court judge recently ruled it invalid and it will be appealed, so that it’s almost certain that the Supreme Court of Virginia will issue a ruling on the case. In fact, oral arguments are due to start this coming Monday.
Many people on the right are incensed because the gerrymandering would be so very skewed to favor Democrats, and feel there is an issue of fairness. But Judge Hurley’s ruling against the measure was based on the following:
The proposed ballot question asked: “Should the constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”
Hurley agreed with the Republicans that the question’s partisan language was misleading and fell short of what is acceptable to present to voters. The judge further sided with Republicans, ruling the referendum violates the state constitution’s timing requirements.
There are other, similar lawsuits, and they may all be joined. One in particular mentions the following issues with the referendum wording:
Republican U.S. Representatives John McGuire and Rob Wittman, who both stand to lose their seats due to the proposed redistricting, filed a similar challenge in Richmond. The congressmen in the Richmond lawsuit also attack the ballot language on multiple grounds, including that it does not fairly reflect the substance of the proposed amendment.
There’s also this tidbit:
The referendum comes six years after Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment banning partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court of Virginia drew the current map.
Only six years ago; what a difference. And it seems the recent referendum would end up invalidating the Virginia Supreme Court’s own map.
I don’t know how the Virginia Supreme Court will rule. But after it does, can the case be appealed to SCOTUS, and if so what is SCOTUS likely to decide?
If you think the results can be challenged in SCOTUS because the new districts are so unfairly partisan, not only does that not seem to have been one of the issues in the cases at hand, but the governing SCOTUS precedent on that would be Rucho, decided in 2019 [emphasis mine]:
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be “incompatible with democratic principles”, the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
The case was one of three heard in the 2018 term dealing with issues related to partisan gerrymandering used in the districting plans of states. It was combined with Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina, and its decision included the Court’s judgment on Lamone v. Benisek, a partisan gerrymandering case from Maryland. The 5–4 decision, divided along ideological lines, left in place North Carolina’s congressional districts, which favored the Republican Party, and Maryland’s congressional districts, which favored the Democratic Party.
The breakdown was that it was the conservative wing of the Court that said it could not do a thing about even nakedly partisan gerrymandering, and the liberal wing that wanted to rule against the practice:
The Court issued its decision in Rucho and Lamone on June 27, 2019. In the 5–4 majority opinion, the Court ruled that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts”, vacating and remanding the lower courts’ decisions with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to enact laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Kagan’s opinion was critical of the majority: “Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent.”
On the other hand, gerrymandering for racial discrimination is something that SCOTUS can rule on. But as far as I can tell, no one has alleged that the Virginia districts are being redrawn for racially discriminatory reasons. Although race and politics can and often do overlap, there’s also an assumption that gerrymandering goals are political unless clearly racial. So if there is any new challenge to the Virginia redistricting on racial grounds it would probably fail, and if there’s any challenge that it’s politically partisan, Rucho would almost certainly control and SCOTUS would not act.
But the procedural challenges and the language challenges remain, and are the heart of the legal matter. Could or would SCOTUS decide either the procedural question or the wording question? I doubt it, although in a great deal of searching I haven’t yet found anything that directly answers the question. However, it generally appears that SCOTUS ordinarily defers to states on such matters. There always could be an exception, however.
In sum, I think whatever the Supreme Court of Virginia decides, it’s very likely to be the final word on the matter.
