20 Reasons Why Hillary Would Wipe Her Server Clean

20 Reasons Why Hillary Would Wipe Her Server Clean

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Hillary is a hoarder.  So is Bill.  So if she actually removed everything from her server, she had to be convinced that it would be more dangerous to keep the emails than to ride through a scandal, no matter how rough.

This scandal isn't about Hillary's privacy, it's about her self-preservation.  So here's what would make her do it:

1.  The emails contained damaging information about Benghazi that conflicted with her testimony and statements.

2.  The emails -- and those of her closest aides -- showed her improper use of her position to benefit the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Teneo, and herself.

3.  If she gave the Benghazi Committee electronic access to the emails, they could easily determine whether any had been edited or altered.  It would have been extremely difficult to delete just some of the information in the emails.  If she tried to doctor them, the system would likely show when it was last edited.  Any edits after she left the State Department would be highly suspicious and the earlier versions could probably be retrieved anyway.  So, it would be much easier to give out only hard copies, which can be easily doctored without detection and which would be difficult to search electronically.

4.  The emails would show the improper coordination with the Clinton Global Initiative and U.S. corporations.  Huma Abedin worked for the State Department as Clinton's right hand person, Teneo, and the Clinton Global Initiative all at once.  She used one of Hillary's private email accounts on Hillary's server.  Were her emails deleted too?

5.  The emails would show just how many of her political cronies she brought into the State Department.

6.  She wanted to hide any policy disagreements with Obama.

7.  She wanted to hide any knowledge of and role in the NSA spying on foreign leaders.

8.  She wanted to conceal efforts to topple pro-democracy regime in Honduras and restore a would- be dictator.

9.  She wanted to hide efforts to arm Syrian rebels.

10.  She wanted to hide her push to keep Egypt President Mubarek in office.

11.  The emails would show her back channel Benghazi "intelligence" briefings from Sidney Blumenthal and any responses, and...

12.  Conceal her role in postponing signing the UN Arms Control Treaty until after the 2012 election, and...  

13.  Conceal her opposition to designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, and...  

14.  Hide her comments critical of Israel in the settlement controversy, and... 

15.  Conceal her position on troop surge for Afghanistan, and... 

16.  Hide her support for accommodation with China despite its well documented human rights abuses, and...

17.  Conceal her comments on the DEA Fast and Furious program and its impact on US-Mexican relations, and... 

 
18.  Hide what we were doing in Benghazi in the first place, and...

19.  Conceal the possible role disgraced former NSA advisor -- and Hillary pal -- Sandy Berger played in advising her, and finally...

20.  Because she's Hillary Clinton and she doesn't have to do anything that she doesn't want to do.

Given the highly suspicious timing of the mass deletions -- about two years after she left the State Department -- the only inference that can be drawn about why she dumped the documents is that she was HIDING a lot.  There's just no way to conclude otherwise.  It's typical Hillary.  Do we need four more years of her messes?

Indiana’s RFRA Act .... what are the real issues?

Indiana’s RFRA Act .... what is the real issue?

It should come as no surprise to us of the present age that religion plays a key role in political life. Recently the State of Indiana enacted its Religious Freedom Restoration Act that parallels Federal legislation and statutes of many other states of the Union. 

Unfortunately, some American citizens or interests are keen on exposing the so-called discrimination or potential discrimination that this kind of legislation may perpetrate against fellow citizens who are part of the sexual orientation and gender identity movement.

Powerful influences including elements of the media, the NCAA, and large corporations that publicly support the political, social, and cultural initiatives of this movement have been adding their objections to this new legislation which reflects what has been the law for some time in other jurisdictions. Could it be that there is something in the text of the Indiana law that is different? I do not think that is the real issue. The real issue resides in the text itself and what the text is supposed to protect, which I shall address in a moment.

The opponents of the new Indiana law are now pressuring the legislators and the governor, who supports the legislation, for clarifications. But are clarifications needed? This is where a careful examination and interpretation of the text are in order. After all, words and their meanings are important to the law as are the entire texts. In my discussion today, I am relying on Indiana Senate Bill No. 568 introduced on January 20 of this year and enacted this past week. The text is HERE:  Download SB0568.01.INTR.

The substance of the legislation is contained in Section 6 that provides that state action or the action of an individual based on state action cannot “substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a law or policy of general applicability.” The same section further provides that a burden to the right of religious free exercise may be lawful and trump the right of religious freedom if the burden is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest” and is “the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.” This language essentially tracks Supreme Court jurisprudence, albeit at times confusing, on the nature of religious liberty.

The first five sections of the legislation contain the definitions applicable to the intent and purpose of the new law. I find two of the definitions crucial to meeting the general opposition to the state RFRA that opponents of the bill are voicing. Section 3 defines the phrase “the exercise of religion.” The definition can be fairly distilled as the practice or observance of a person’s [defined in Section 4] ability to act or to refuse to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by the person’s sincerely held religious belief. Inherent in this protected right is the defense of the person who is acting or refusing to act on the grounds of that person’s religion. This protected right does not impose on the non-believer or someone who adheres to some other faith. It protects the claimant who is exercising a Constitutional and now an Indiana statutory right. It does not interfere with the legal rights of others who may disagree with the religious tenets in issue.

To understand this point further, it is useful to look at the second important definition to which I alluded a moment ago, and this definition concerns the “compelling governmental interest” that can derogate the protected right of religious freedom under specified circumstances. A “compelling governmental interest” is defined as “a governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the exercise of religion.” I have emphasized two passages with italics.

While the first italicized phrase might profit from a definition, I do not think that a definition essential to the protection of all legitimate interests at stake. The phrase “the highest magnitude” suggests a crucial legal, perhaps even constitutional, principle that is essential to the integrity and survival of the Republic, the State of Indiana, and the commonweal/common good.

Opponents to the legislation appear to ignore this element of the text when they argue that the Indiana law “could make it easier for religious conservatives [the legislation does not use the term “conservative” anywhere] to refuse service to gay couples.” What might these services be? The denial of some services to anyone might actually be a lawful act of discrimination rather than an unlawful act of discrimination.

For example, an innkeeper might discriminate against a would-be customer if the innkeeper refuses to serve alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated or underage. This refusal could be compelled not only by law but also by a person’s sincerely held religious belief that the intoxicated or underage person should not be served. Might the proprietor of a bed and breakfast refuse to accommodate a single person? Unless the single person is rowdy, a known fugitive from justice, travelling with an animal, etc., it would be difficult for the proprietor to refuse accommodation on the grounds of religious freedom as the law is designed to protect. But what if it is a couple of persons? Does it matter if they are of the same-sex or opposite-sex? Could the proprietor rely on the provisions of this law to deny accommodation to either couple and not trigger the compelling governmental interest standard of the highest magnitude? It would seem that the right of religious freedom (or conscience which is not directly addressed by the statute’s language) as enshrined by the law would protect the proprietor who knows that the opposite-sex-couple is not married. Why should the same-sex-couple be treated differently by forcing the proprietor to provide them with a room with a large bed? (Perhaps the circumstances would be different if this couple were Queequeg and Ismael from Melville’s Moby Dick, but I digress.) Is there a compelling governmental interest of the highest magnitude that is at stake? Would it matter if the proprietor of the business relying on the religious liberty protection operates a bakery and objects to an opposite-sex-couple who want a cake to celebrate their living together out of wedlock or a same-sex-couple who order a cake to celebrate their commitment or union under state law?

The point here is this: must a person seeking the protection of this law conform his, her, or its religious conscience and thereby sacrifice his, her, or its religious faith to the sin of someone who desires to have his, her, or its action declared a compelling governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the religious person’s free exercise? It strikes me that, given the context of those objecting to this law, this is precisely the objective that they are seeking. They are pursuing the goal because they see no sin or sin is inconsequential; it is irrelevant to them that they are asking another person to cooperate and participate in their sin. This circumstance parallels what medical providers are now facing from their licensing authorities when they are forced to refer a patient to a medical provider who will provide the service they cannot provide due to their sincerely held religious belief or conscience.

As I keep going over the text of the new Indiana law and consider the objections raised by its opponents, I see strong parallels to what Henry VIII did in England from 1533-35. Both the king and the opponents of the Indiana law will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with their objective from escaping. All must conform to the goals of the law’s opponents, and sincerely held religious beliefs will be no defense. We know what happened during and after 1535 in England. Is this same thing really required under the rubric of a compelling governmental interest of the highest magnitude today? If so, then sin wins once again and virtue is at forfeit.

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation

Daniel O. Conkle, professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?

It's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.

But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be miss characterized or dismissed on that basis.

LETTERMAN'S TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

LETTERMAN'S TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

#10.  I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

#9.  I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

#8.  I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

#7.  I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

#6.  I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.  I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

#5.  I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

#4.  I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves.  They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.

 #2.  I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

 #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.

        "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits"... Albert Einstein 

Wisconsin State Trooper Trevor Casper shot dead by a thug

#TrevorsLifeMatters, #PoliceLivesMatter

BY TIM SCHMIDT

• A crowd of thousands won’t chant it, so I will: Justice for Trevor. 
• A nation won’t hashtag it, so I will: #TrevorsLifeMatters. 
• A president won’t say it, so I will: If I had a son, he’d look like Trevor Casper.” 

If the above words don’t send shivers down your spine, you probably haven’t heard the story of Wisconsin State Trooper Trevor Casper. 

Trevor Casper: 

21 years old. 2011 graduate of Kiel High School. December, 2014 graduate of the Wisconsin State Patrol’s 60th recruiting class. Beloved son. Beloved brother. 

Trevor Casper: 

Deceased. Shot and killed on Tuesday, March 24th in an exchange of gunfire with a bank robber...on his very first day of solo patrol. 

Trevor Casper: 

Undoubtedly one of the good guys. 

You know, I’m not going to waste a single second talking about the bad guy here. That might be the mainstream media’s mode of operation, but it’s not mine. 

I’m sticking with Trevor Casper. After all, his is the name we should remember. 

Yes, I’m sad and I’m angry. But I’m also grateful. I’m grateful that in the midst of a period in history where the actions of our nation’s law enforcement officers are questioned at every turn, there are people like Trevor Casper willing to stand up for what’s right. 

Irish orator Sir Edmund Burke once said that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." 

Well, not on Trevor Casper’s watch. 

Trevor died doing what he was sworn to do—what he claims he was “born to do,”—and his story serves as a reminder to all of us just how incredible the sacrifice “to serve and protect” really is. 

I simply cannot fathom that there are people out there who protest the justified defensive actions of our nation’s law enforcement officers—actions that few understand and even fewer are willing to carry out. 

I simply cannot fathom that there are people out there who refuse to acknowledge that a police officer shares in the natural-born right to defend his or her OWN LIFE. 

And I simply cannot fathom that there are people out there who continue to ignore the bottom line: evil exists in this world...and it always will. But remember, if there were no bad guys, we wouldn’t have good guys—heroes—like Trevor Casper. 

Trevor Casper: 

Protector. Purveyor of justice. 

He undoubtedly saved countless lives with his heroic actions...and he paid the ultimate price. As Wisconsin mourns and the thin blue line gets a little thinner, the least we can do is remember his name: 

Trevor Casper. 

Prayers to his family, to Wisconsin State Patrol, and to all law enforcement officers who, like Trevor, wouldn’t hesitate to lay down their lives to keep people like you and me safe. 
Take Care and Stay Safe, 

Butt out of Archdiocese’s business

Butt out of Archdiocese’s business

Local Letter to the Editor

I found the March 22 Enquirer editorial, “Contract still more Big Brother, less Pope Francis,” alarming and bombastic for many reasons. First, what business is it of The Enquirer whether Catholic schools require that their employees not actively oppose Catholic teaching?

Teachers ministering and shaping the future of our children certainly ought to be held to a high standard. There would be outrage if the media started questioning the right of Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or other schools or institutions to require that their teachers or leaders not oppose the fundamentals of their faith. Perhaps that’s the price Catholic schools pay for being so successful that parents of different faiths choose to enroll their children to take advantage of the great education. But the whole point is that it is supposed to be a Catholic education, not something else. What concern is that of The Enquirer?

The headline is misleading. How can a contract be more like Pope Francis? This is a legal employment contract, which unfortunately in this day and age is required to prevent lawsuits. It’s not a press release,marketing material, sermon or mission statement. To compare such an administrative necessity to the wonderful message of Pope Francis is disingenuous and ignores the same local message coming from Catholic charities, schools, ministries, and outreach to the poor and sick.

The Enquirer claims the contract “forces teachers to dance a ridiculously fine line when discussing things such as gay rights and gay marriage in class, outside school and in private.” On the contrary, teachers who adhere to church teaching when discussing any “controversial” topic won’t go wrong. That’s what parents sending kids to Catholic schools expect.

It is wrong for The Enquirer to frame the contract as “a choice forced upon them by an archdiocese more intent on holding the line in a culture war than preserving human dignity and understanding.” Preserving human dignity and understanding are fundamental ideals for Catholic schools. The Enquirer and popular media are not the sole arbiter of these ideals. Please see the First Amendment of the Constitution.

It is ridiculous for The Enquirer to claim, “Students also face real consequences as they see their role models gagged, and their identities squelched as immoral.” No one is asking a teacher to be perfect. We are all sinners. The contract does not require teachers to be saints. The contract does not target one’s identity, but rather one’s behavior. After all, it was Catholic philosopher St. Augustine who wrote in 424 what has come to be known as “love the sinner but hate the sin.” It is fair that Catholic schools expect their teachers not appear on the next reality TV show filmed in Cincinnati.

The Enquirer states, “The Catholic Church is an inherently conservative organization.” This is a mischaracterization of a church that also opposes the death penalty; supports immigration reform and health care for all; advocates for social and economic justice; and ministers in prisons. It becomes clear that The Enquirer is not finding fault with the contract supporting church teachings as much as it is attacking the church teachings themselves. This being the case, where does it stop? “Moral questions” on various topics are sure to arise in the future as the influence of secular society encroaches on the personal sanctity of faith. Certainly the church is entitled to the same protection from such attack on its core principles under the First Amendment as is The Enquirer.
Butt out.

THE HATE RACKET

THE HATE RACKET

How one group cons government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis – and rakes in millions doing it!

It never has made sense, and most Americans are at a loss to explain it.

Why – in an era when virtually all violent extremism and terror activity in the U.S. comes from those in the grip of radical Islam – is the government obsessed with "rightwing extremism"?

Likewise, why are the major news media always looking for – one could almost say hoping for – evidence that "rightwing extremists" are the culprits in high-profile terror attacks, as proven by network news reports absurdly suggesting the Boston Marathon bombers and the Aurora, Colo., movie theater mass shooter were actually "rightwing extremists" or "tea party" members.

Even the Obama-era Department of Homeland Security and FBI have been preoccupied with threats of "rightwing extremists," warning law enforcement to watch out for unstable constitutionalists, radical pro-lifers, violent Second Amendment advocates, "anti-immigrant" activists and, especially, returning military veterans.

With genuine mega-threats to the American homeland looming daily from murderous, genocidal jihadists, why the fixation on phantom "rightwing extremists"?

Meet the Southern Poverty Law Center. This super-wealthy public-interest law firm headquartered in Montgomery, Ala., which decades ago made a name for itself by fighting the Ku Klux Klan, today presents itself as the nation's premier defender of civil liberties and protector of the innocent from violent extremism. Behind this veil, however, today's SPLC is revealed to be the wellspring and dominant think tank for outrageously defamatory leftwing attacks on individuals and organizations that embrace traditional Judeo-Christian values.

The group's primary modus operandi? Demonize and defame mainstream conservatives, Christians and Jews by lumping them together with genuine haters like neo-Nazi Skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. Then highly publicize those "Hatewatch" lists and "Hate Maps," soliciting millions of dollars in donations to help SPLC combat all those supposed rightwing "haters" and "extremists" out there.

But now, the SPLC stands exposed as perhaps never before in the sensational March 2015 issue of Whistleblower, titled "THE HATE RACKET."

Recently, the bubble of illusion surrounding the SPLC burst for millions of Americans when the supposed civil rights organization attacked Dr. Benjamin Carson, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon and likely 2016 GOP presidential contender, by adding him to its "extremist watch list." Ironically, the soft-spoken, high-achieving, adversity-overcoming Carson is widely considered one of the most positive role models for young black males in modern America.

So, what was Carson's offense, for which he was – just like many other individuals and organizations before him, including WND – cast as a hateful and potentially dangerous rightwing "extremist" by the SPLC?

Fasten your seat belts: Dr. Carson stated, "Marriage is between a man and a woman."

"Wait a minute," said Whistleblower Editor and WND Vice President David Kupelian. "For politely expressing a view identical to the view embraced by virtually every person in the entire world at all times and in all places, except for some people in the U.S. and Europe in just the last few years, Dr. Carson was publicly defamed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and held up to ridicule by being portrayed as akin to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party."

Why does all this matter?

"Why would anybody even care," asked Kupelian, "what some venal, far-left organization says, especially one that is widely criticized – by both the left and the right – for being little more than a huge money racket, frightening rich, old, clueless liberals into believing America will soon be overrun with drooling Klansmen lynching blacks on every street corner if they don't send big donations to the SPLC?"

It matters because, as "THE HATE RACKET" reveals, this particular far-left organization exerts a huge influence not only on the major news media, but on the United States government, including the Department of Homeland Security. It's no coincidence that the government's notion of who constitutes a threat, a hater, an extremist, a potential terrorist, a danger to the American homeland, mirrors that of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Unfortunately, the SPLC's demonization of supposed "haters" and "extremists" also fixes a target on the backs of many mainstream Christian and conservative Americans and groups. Never was this point more dramatically made than when a confessed domestic terrorist admitted to FBI investigators he was inspired to violently attack the Family Research Council, a mainstream conservative Christian group headquartered for three decades in Washington, D.C., after seeing the FRC identified on the Law Center's notorious "hate map."

Here's how Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, FRC's executive vice president, describes the scene in the March Whistleblower:

On Aug. 15, 2012, a man went into an office building in downtown Washington, D.C., and shot a building manager – shattering the major bones in his left arm. The shooter, Floyd Lee Corkins II, wanted to kill as many people in the building as he could. Fortunately, his rampage of violence was cut short by the man he shot, Leo Johnson, before he could become a mass murderer of the employees at the Family Research Council.

Corkins was a pro-gay political activist. He told investigators he "wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face." Less than a month earlier, Chick-fil-A restaurants had seen a massive, national demonstration of support when it was learned that a foundation associated with the firm’s owners gave some minor financial support to organizations that supported natural marriage. Thus, in Corkins’ mind, the restaurant chain became associated with opposition to his pro-homosexual political agenda.

Corkins entered the Family Research Council with a 9 mm pistol, two ammunition clips of 15 rounds in his front pocket, the rounds in the gun and a box of 50 additional rounds. He also had 15 individually wrapped Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He was not puffing things up when he told his interrogators that he intended "to kill as many people as [he] could."

Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush after serving 36 years in the Army as an original member of Delta Force and commander of the Green Berets, later reflected on the FRC attack: "Nothing speaks to the SPLC’s inhumanity as its behavior after the shooting at FRC. How would you react if you had created a map that was used by a terrorist to attempt to kill dozens of people? Wouldn’t decent people conclude … that you were fortunate to have escaped being forever linked to mass murder? Wouldn’t you change course? Of course, that is what decent people would do, but decent people do not run the SPLC."

Highlights of "THE HATE RACKET" include:

•   "Meet the extremists" by David Kupelian, on why a super-wealthy leftwing group would liken Ben Carson and WND to Klansmen and neo-Nazis

•   "Wellspring of manufactured hate: Inside the Southern Poverty Law Center" by James Simpson

•   "Famed neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson branded 'extremist'" by Bob Unruh, on shocking attack on America's top black role model because he opposes same-sex marriage

•   "SPLC steps in it with Ben Carson smear" by Joseph Farah, who says "apology" to one of America's most respected black leaders' proves the group is vulnerable to public opinion

•   "King of the hate business" by Alexander Cockburn, in which celebrated leftwing writer exposes what he calls the "arch-salesman of hate mongering, Mr. Morris Dees"

•   "Harpers exposes 'The Church of Morris Dees'" – iconic liberal publication quotes Dees' business partner as saying, "Morris and I shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money"

•   "Crushing dissent in the name of tolerance" by Robert Knight, who says "the SPLC has long been the U.S. government’s prime source for what constitutes a hate group'

•   "Military warned 'evangelicals' No. 1 threat" by Jack Minor, on Army briefing that listed Christians as America's top extremist list, ahead of Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida and the KKK

•   "Obama DHS: 'Right-wing extremists' a greater threat than ISIS" by Chelsea Schilling, on a new government report that predicts jihadists aren't the worst threat for domestic violence in 2015

•   "FBI scrubs key 'hate-crime' partnership" by Bob Unruh, about what happened after the SPLC was "linked to domestic terrorism in federal court"

•   "MSNBC conspiracy theorists" by Joseph Farah, on how the far-left cable network aired an SPLC-assisted attack on WND

•   "Amazon urged to blacklist 'haters'" by Bob Unruh, on SPLC's audacious attempt to put traditional-values groups out of business

•   "The politics of hate" by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. ("Jerry") Boykin, who says: "Nothing speaks to the SPLC’s inhumanity as its behavior after the shooting" at the Family Research Council

•   "The ridiculous ‘hate group’ list" by Robert Spencer, on how repeating the SPLC's defamatory accusations has "become a staple of every report from lazy leftist journalists"

•   "Standing up for Hamas" by Daniel Greenfield, on how the SPLC defends supporters of the genocidal terror group

•   "'Smear artists'? There's no artistry in SPLC's smears" by Don Feder, on how the controversial group equates conservatives, from Dinesh D'Souza to David Horowitz, with Klansmen and Nazis

•   "Liberal lies, Brian Williams and the SPLC" by Matt Barber, a humorous look at how a possible "win-win" job shake-up might provide a new position for the disgraced NBC anchor

•   "Internet in bull's-eye for new 'hate speech' plan" by Jerome Corsi, on a proposal that would evaluate online language and make "recommendations"

One more question: While it's understandable that conservatives and Christians, whom the SPLC maligns for a living, would oppose the group, why would the left condemn with equal harshness what is, after all, a powerful leftwing organization? Why would the well-known liberal-left magazine Harpers, as well as Alexander Cockburn, one of America's most celebrated leftwing journalists until his 2012 death, publish withering rebukes of the group? As "THE HATE RACKET" proves, it's because the SPLC, which started out in the '70s as a law firm dedicated to defending civil rights, no longer even appears to believe in the causes it once espoused.

It's all about the money.

After all, when Ben Carson was asked if he thought the SPLC was "crooked," he replied, "Oh, definitely. Certainly that's been the impression of everybody I've heard from."