Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21
Even though Twitter has reportedly removed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) from its Trust and Safety Council, the social media company has yet to explain what relationship it may still have with the tainted left-wing special interest group.
Twitter’s alleged move to distance itself from the SPLC came just days after the National Center and over 30 other conservative and faith-based groups and individuals sent a letter to several Big Tech CEOs that asked them to “drop any and all ties” with the SPLC.
The SPLC’s “hate list” has long been criticized for being a political tool used to discredit conservative and faith-based organizations. In one instance, the list was used by a gunman who targeted the Family Research Council for a planned shooting spree. With the firing of its founder and the resignation of its president, the SPLC is also now accused of having a “systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace.”
In a new letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, many of the same organizations and individuals have asked for Twitter to clarify its current relationship with the SPLC. National Center for Public Policy Research General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. once again signed the letter on behalf of the National Center.
The letter to Dorsey states:
Twitter still has not made any formal announcement about its relationship with the SPLC. If it is true, we will happily applaud this decision publicly….
If Twitter maintains any relationship with the SPLC in an advisory capacity, it is embracing a bigoted, hypocritical organization with a hate-filled agenda. Immediately issuing a public statement cutting any and all ties with the SPLC would restore Twitter’s credibility on this issue.
We urge you once again in the strongest possible terms to make a formal and public declaration that you are cutting all ties with the SPLC.
Besides Justin, other signers to the letter include Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, Lisa Nelson of the American Legislative Exchange Council and Ed Corrigan of the Conservative Partnership Institute. The effort was spearheaded by L. Brent Bozell III of the Media Research Center.
Twitter has not yet responded.
Perhaps the NAACP should have thought twice about releasing its new report on April Fool’s Day. It’s hard enough to take the group seriously these days on top of wondering if “Fossil Fueled Foolery” isn’t just a prank.
In a new commentary published by the Daily Signal, Project 21 member Derrick Hollie takes the establishment civil rights group to task for once again compromising its legacy in an apparent attempt to become a tool of the left-wing political machine. This time, the NAACP is lending its dwindling credibility to help the green lobby demonize the affordable energy industry.
Though the report was released purposefully on April 1 to be cute, Derrick doesn’t think the NAACP effectively putting poor black Americans at risk for the green agenda is very funny. While Derrick tries to keep an “open mind” when policies and regulations directly affect minority communities, he calls “Fossil Fueled Foolery” manipulative and says it “shows exactly who the NAACP serves: the coalition of the liberal elite.”
“Low-income and black Americans,” Derrick writes, “will have to look elsewhere for genuine representation.”
Despite the organization’s “mission… to uphold and defend civil and human rights,” the NAACP’s report is simply a hit piece critical of the fossil fuel industry upon which so many Americans depend for affordable and reliable power. Yet those who deliver this benefit – something that can be a life-or-death proposition in many cases – are portrayed in a manner one would think was reserved just for the Ku Klux Klan. The report is full of angry accusations, mocking cartoons and dubious accusations. Its “list of technical resources,” of course, is solely from a leftist perspective.
The NAACP is certainly entitled to its opinion (though not its own facts), but Derrick points out that this assault on the energy producers so many people need lacks a viable alternative. He writes:
The contradictory 28-page report criticizes the industry and even highlights its “Top 10 Fossil Fuel Industry Tactics” —but nowhere does it offer a solution to our growing energy needs. There’s also no mention of energy poverty, a real phenomenon plaguing the black community in which households can’t afford basic electric and heating needs due to high energy prices.
Those energy prices are only pushed higher by “green agenda” policies. So the very people the NAACP claims they are helping are actually the ones being negatively impacted by the energy policies they promote.
It begs the question as to who comprises the NAACP’s core constituency these days. Who does the NAACP serve? It certainly doesn’t seem to be advancing the cause of black America. Derrick adds:
The NAACP is simply trying to smear conventional energy sources in an effort to stay in with the left. But such tactics will only backfire on the people the NAACP claims to represent: low-income and black communities. We need look no further than the city of Baltimore, the national headquarters of the NAACP, where some residents pay 50 to 75% more in energy bills because of green energy policies that have fallen short.
This reflects a loss of mission on the part of the NAACP, which was founded to advance the interests of black people—not buy wholesale into one side’s energy policies.
Project 21 recently called out the NAACP for not rescinding a nomination for actor Jussie Smollett for an NAACP Image Award after he was charged with making false claims of being the victim of a hate crime. Project 21 members said rescinding the nomination would have allowed the NAACP to preserve the intent of the Image Awards to honor “individuals or groups who promote social justice through creative endeavors.”
To read all of Derrick’s commentary – “NAACP Embraces ‘Green’ Agenda, Showing It No Longer Represents Black Interests” – on the Daily Signal website, click here.
Unlike with ObamaCare, members of Congress have had the time and ability to examine the proposed Trump Administration rule on work requirements for entitlement eligibility.
The question remains then as to why members of the key congressional subcommittee didn’t seem to bother to take advantage of that opportunity before they held a hearing on the topic.
After a work requirement for eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly “food stamps”) failed to make it into last year’s Farm Bill, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a proposed rule to require able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWD) of a certain age and under certain circumstances to participate in 20 hours/week of qualified work to remain eligible for SNAP benefits for longer than three months over a 36-month period.
The proposed rule was published in the federal record on February 1. It was officially open for comment until April 2 – a few days before a congressional hearing of the House Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight and Department Operations. The National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network submitted three comments supporting the proposed rule. A SNAP work requirement was specifically recommended in Project 21’s “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America” as a means of giving black Americans more opportunity in the job market.
At the congressional hearing, comments from the subcommittee’s chairman and others indicated a lack of insight into the long-published intent of the proposed rule.
Chairman Marcia Fudge decried the work requirement as “harsh, arbitrary and mean” as well as “dishonest and immoral” and part of a “conservative political wish list.” She was concerned in part about a work requirement in rural areas where jobs may not be readily available.
The proposed rule seeks to tighten up waivers first given to states during the height of the recession a decade ago. Such waivers are often unnecessary now due to economic recovery. But the authors of the proposed rule were obviously mindful and flexible, proposing the preservation of waivers in areas where the unemployment rate is above 10 percent or where there is a lack of sufficient jobs. Like the rural areas of Fudge’s concern. There would also be waivers available with regard to age, ability to engage in work, dependents and pregnancy.
Yet Representative Jim McGovern still insisted a work requirement would “stigmatize” and “demonize” SNAP recipients. He proclaimed at the hearing that “the majority of able-bodied adults on SNAP right now, um, actually work.” This was echoed by Fudge, who described ABAWDs: “They’re the people who serve us in the cafeteria… Those are ABAWDs…They’re the people who clean the buildings we work in every day.”
And those ABAWDs would likely not lose a thing under the proposed rule. As McGovern specifically noted, they work. They probably meet the requirement. They would be neither demonized nor stigmatized since they have been meeting the basic requirements all along.
In this case the beef is with the bureaucrats who pay the congressional cafeteria and janitorial staffs! Fudge complained, “this government doesn’t pay them enough to make a living,” but that’s a Pelosi problem and not a Trump trouble.
What the proposed rule is trying to do, explained Project 21 member Donna Jackson in her comment, is to encourage people to join the workforce: “When states refuse to enforce work requirements, they effectively incentivize poverty. Worse, they create an environment in which people are not encouraged to realize their potential for economic growth, advancement and independence.”
Fudge asserted that “people want a hand up and not a hand out.” That actually echoed Donna’s argument for enforcing a work requirement among ABAWDs: “Linking welfare eligibility to employment and training was not done because of an opposition to giving people a handout, but to give them a hand up so they may increase their skills, self- esteem and economic security.”
Donna, who worked in the Arkansas Office of Workforce Development, saw the success of putting SNAP recipients to work gaining skills and leaving the welfare rolls. This savings is then passed on to those who really need it: “With the transition of more people from the welfare rolls to the workforce, the savings and additional revenue mean more resources for truly needy people such as the elderly and disabled.”
Even those who could receive a waiver should want to consider SNAP a “safety net and not a hammock.” That’s what Project 21 member Marie Fischer wrote in her comment. She described her own personal story about receiving SNAP benefits:
As someone who was once on food stamps, I understand the necessity of government assistance. But I also understand the need for having a requirement for work, volunteerism or job training in which ABAWDs must engage in to continue to participate in government assistance programs. There is no excuse for those on welfare to not try to help their community and help themselves.
When I lost a job after 20 years in the workforce, I was on assistance with two dependents. I needed help, but I was determined to make government assistance a temporary condition. Those benefits helped me look for work. I also was able to take a certification course to find a new and better position.
I only needed assistance for short time because I knew it was not a way of life for me or my children. And I did this even though I was not classified as an ABAWD. This is the way it should be, but it often isn’t. Too many adopt welfare as a sole source of income.
It’s clear from this hearing and other public comments submitted on the proposed rule that this is a highly emotional and highly partisan issue. But policy should be rooted in sober facts and not raw emotion. And those charged with helping the policymaking process ought to faithfully exercise their responsibilities.
Last June, the conspiracy theory lawsuit alleging that the energy industry knew the risk of fossil fuel emissions – and was therefore responsible for it – didn’t hold up in court. But two California cities are currently trying to revive the case on appeal.
National Center Senior Fellow Horace Cooper calls the lawsuit, brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, “a ridiculous bid to single out a few energy companies and hold them exclusively responsible for all of Earth’s climate change.” In a Daily Signal commentary, he writes that the appeal should suffer a similar fate since “the legal issue is as clear as their shakedown is transparent.”
A judge appointed by President Bill Clinton dismissed the initial case. The “smoking gun,” supposedly revealing that BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell acted maliciously, turned out to be a widely available slide show summarizing questionable claims by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With Judge William Alsop noting that “[e]verybody knew everything,” and the plaintiffs’ lawyer unable to add anything else, the judge ruled there was nowhere to go with the case. Horace writes:
It must be deeply humiliating for the two California cities and their environmental allies to have their sham conspiracy stories so utterly and so publicly debunked.
Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped activists from continuing to push the false narrative. In fact, they’ve taken it a step further in a new conspiracy theory that alleges that, as early as the 1970s, the federal government knew “the impact carbon dioxide emissions would have on the planet.”
Of course, it is absurd to argue that government officials of both political parties knew and that the industry knew, and yet at the same time pretend there is a secret scheme to keep the info hidden.
The two cities also aren’t suing the government for failing to act, but instead narrowly focused their legal shakedown on the energy industry, presumably due to its deep pockets.
Horace notes the origins of this lawsuit lie in those flawed dreams of mayors and their legal counsel who harbored “hopes of winning billions to balance their books”:
Trial lawyers are foisting these conspiracy theories on the courts in a lame effort to replicate the successful anti-tobacco litigation strategy years ago. The only problem with this strategy is there is no cover-up of harmful information, and any climate policy changes are within the purview of Washington, D.C.
The appeal of Judge Alsop’s dismissal will hinge on the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also finding no conspiracy and an agreement that this is an issue for Congress and not a solitary lower court judge. And there is precedent for the latter that was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011.
“Once the cities lose their appeal, American consumers will win,” Horace writes, “escaping the more expensive energy and economic damage that would have resulted from the lawsuit.”
To read Horace’s Daily Signal commentary – “Bizarre Conspiracy Theories Mark Climate Hustle in California” – in its entirety, click here.
While signing two executive orders designed to promote and expand American “energy dominance,” President Donald Trump declared on April 10 that the “era of job-killing regulation is over.”
Focused on the transport of energy, one of the orders directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to review and propose new rules on how states, Native American tribes and government agencies use the Clean Water Act in relation to the shipment of liquified natural gas (LNG). It will also allow for LNG shipment by road and rail. The second order moves the authority for decisions about transnational pipeline permits – such as the long-running saga of the Keystone XL pipeline – from the U.S. Department of State to the White House.
Citing the need for the change, the President said that “badly needed energy infrastructure is being held back by special interest groups, entrenched bureaucracies and radical activists.”
What can be expected next for energy policy?
These orders are just part of the Trump Administration’s overhaul of American energy policy. One of the next moves is expected to be offshore oil and gas drilling. This is highlighted by Project 21 member Derrick Hollie in a new commentary circulated by BlackPressUSA.
Derrick, who is also the president of Reaching America, writes about the expected drilling plan:
The government’s next five-year energy leasing plan could open additional areas in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico to energy development. Offshore reserves represent one of the greatest untapped sources of domestic natural gas and oil – and jobs…
So, we’re talking about decades’ worth of energy security. But first we need to update government policy that keeps 94 percent of federal offshore acreage closed to energy development. Offshore energy in the Atlantic and Eastern Gulf of Mexico could generate hundreds of thousands of jobs – in coastal states and nationwide, in the energy industry and beyond.
Not only would such a change continue to help “cut costs for families – at the pump and in-home utility bills,” but Derrick writes that this shift in policy would also help American businesses by “generating a manufacturing resurgence.” It would also help in “revitalizing communities” through increased revenues:
Job opportunities aren’t limited to the energy industry. Energy development generates economic activity that supports jobs at all educational levels in multiple sectors – from engineering firms to equipment companies to restaurants.
Energy development is also a major revenue generator. In the Gulf of Mexico alone, expanding offshore exploration could contribute $4.9 billion in funding to support schools, roads, bridges and other state needs.
The Trump Administration’s proposal for offshore drilling is expected to be released as early as this week, pending a confirmation vote on acting Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt to take over the department.
To read all of Derrick’s commentary – “Offshore Exploration Promises Jobs, Affordable Energy” – click here.
When Conyers was in the majority, his bill was often designated HR 40 – a reference to the “40 acres and a mule” allegedly promised to freed slaves by General William Tecumseh Sherman in the aftermath of the Civil War. But, whether he was in leadership or not, Conyers’ reparations bill never gained traction. It languished for three decades.
In 2019, the bill lives on – introduced as HR 40 once again in the 116th Congress by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. The current version is described as seeking to “establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.”
With intersectional politics dominating the left, the reparations issue is a front-burner issue these days. Speaker Nancy Pelosi told students at Howard University: “I support that and look forward to an open mind and full participation of the public in that discussion.” Despite this positive rhetoric, HR 40 has not seen any congressional consideration since its introduction in January.
Where it has gotten traction is among presidential candidates, with the skids greased by the Reverend Al Sharpton. At the recent National Action Network conference, liberal challengers to President Donald Trump either endorsed the idea behind HR 40 on their own or did so after prompting from Sharpton. Senator Kamala Harris said she would “sign that bill,” as did Senator Bernie Sanders. Governor John Hickenlooper claimed, “I’m gonna pass it.”
The one lawmaker who reportedly showed reservations at the early April event was Senator Cory Booker, who warned that dealing with the issue of reparations “cannot become just a political box-checking exercise.” Booker’s trepidation was short-lived. The next week, perhaps as an apology of his own for not immediately falling into line, he introduced the Senate companion legislation to HR 40 – S 1083 – with a declaration that the bill “is a way of addressing head-on the persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in our country.”
Clinging to the idea that today’s Americans – presumably those of all races and statuses – who are not responsible for slavery should be paying reparations to those who were not enslaved is seen as more than just a little divisive right now.
While members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network are not trying to explain away or justify the sins of America’s past, they are concerned that dangling the notion of a potential financial remedy isn’t a feasible remedy or solution.
“Putting the faults of slavery upon those who did not contribute to the atrocity is not an appropriate way to usher in a more unified society. The current generation is not responsible for this tainted history, but we are responsible for advocating for a more perfect union that will come by those willing to improve the present and not dwell on the past,” says Project 21 member Demetrius Minor. “While the subjects of slavery and race can make us uncomfortable at times, it’ll be more uncomfortable to pander to certain groups of people instead of offering concrete solutions to better our communities.”
While HR 40/S 1083 is supposed to set up a commission to determine next steps for a formal apology for slavery and other civil rights matters, the sheer time that has passed since the era of slavery and the growth of the American population – in attitude, number, ethnicity, racial intermingling and later immigration – makes figuring out who needs to “do what” and “get what” something between a Herculean and Sisyphean task.
“The slavery reparations legislation that Senator Cory Booker introduced takes shameless pandering to an important constituency to another level,” says Project 21 member Christopher Arps. “Just the task of determining who is eligible for reparations will be a nightmare. If African-Americans do eventually receive reparations, will we still be able to claim past racism and oppression are keeping us from advancing in this country? Or will the majority say you’ve been paid off and now you’ve been made whole?”
“Across the board, this is a dumb idea. It doesn’t make sense,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper on a recent edition of “The Ingraham Angle” on the Fox News Channel. “There is no correlation between the status of a black American, white American or brown American today and what happened with slavery. We have had an intermixing and immigration effort that has changed and transformed the makeup of this country.”
And, as intersectionality as a political weapon has become a double-edged sword that has wounded those who have dabbled in it (like the #MeToo-motivated resignation for Conyers), Project 21 member Adrian Norman suggests that further official study of the reparations issue might burst some liberal political bubbles.
“The idea of reparations is flawed for several reasons, notably that it is predicated on the idea that all of America is responsible for slavery and its effects,” says Adrian. “With that being said, a commission to study the issue might be beneficial, because a fair investigation on this topic will expose to the rest of the country what conservatives already know: Slavery was a phenomenon of the Democrat Party – as were Jim Crow laws, the emergence of the Ku Klux Klan (which operated as the militant arm of that political party) and policies that disenfranchised blacks.”
Adrian adds: “Liberals have misled many people on this issue by masking their own failed policies with the phrase ‘the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.’ So, if it is determined that reparations are to be paid, they should pick up the tab.”
After Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s address at the recent National Action Network conference, it’s hard to believe she didn’t get called out by the majority-black audience for pandering or worse.
In full view of NAN supporters and Al Sharpton, Ocasio-Cortez slipped into a black vernacular. She was obviously trying to relate to the audience, but is it appropriate to do so at a time when “cultural appropriation” is considered a high crime by the left?
If you ask Project 21 member Emery McClendon, the answer is “no.” While McClendon and Ocasio-Cortez share little in common – he is a veteran Tea Party organizer and she is, well, a self-identified Democratic Socialist – it seems like McClendon is the one more interested in making sure that Ocasio-Cortez and others are mindful that their mimicry is more likely mockery.
Then again, it appears to be easier to get away with such behavior when you’re a liberal. Remember, for example, how Joe Biden was spared the rod when he called future running mate Barack Obama “articulate and bright and clean” and scared blacks by saying Mitt Romney would “put y’all back in chains.” Emery points out:
Al Sharpton’s recent National Action Network meeting commanded the attention of many liberal superstars. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was no exception. But how she acted made her stand out.
Ocasio-Cortez stirred up attendees by resorting to “blackspeech” as she addressed the crowd. Just like Hillary Clinton did in Alabama as she used the words of the late Reverend James Cleveland, Ocasio-Cortez – also not black – put on a stellar slow, black accent as she spoke.
It would seem to me that Ocasio-Cortez’s address would have been offensive to those who heard it. First of all, she spoke down to the mostly black crowd, telling them that it was alright to do menial and ordinary jobs. That in itself should have been enough to draw criticism, because she made it sound as though blacks should not seek to achieve anything better.
And she said this even though she referred to her own story of having progressed from making drinks as a bartender to making history as the youngest elected congresswoman. Then there was her slow, carefully-crafted “blackspeech” throughout it all.
Instead of drawing criticism, she drew applause and smiles from those who were sitting there listening to her. Media commentators didn’t take her to task later.
I wonder how the attendees would have responded if she also used blackface to make herself authentic?
It makes me wonder. Could this be the new liberal strategy to avoid a charge of racism from the black community?
Let’s start our stopwatches and wait to see.
Liberal politicians looking to set themselves apart from their colleagues are pushing the envelope with identity politics. The reason, said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper during a recent panel discussion on the Fox News Channel, is because “division works.”
But such positions could end up being a double-edged sword.
The embrace of identity politics has become so brazen that Stacey Abrams – a failed former gubernatorial candidate in Georgia now considering a run for U.S. Senate or the presidency – proclaimed at the Reverend Al Sharpton’s recent National Action Network conference: “I believe in identity politics.”
Hardly unambiguous. And surprisingly not at all in the extreme for the event. Yet such a political strategy could be short-sighted for those seeking to appeal to the entire electorate. As Horace explained on a recent edition of The Ingraham Angle:
If you rile up people – if you get them angry instead of looking at the gains that have been achieved, [liberals] can benefit…
The problem is many black Americans, white Americans and brown Americans are looking around and saying, “What am I getting with all this division?”
One particular topic in the identity politics grab bag that appears to be important for earning Sharpton’s favor is support for reparations to be paid to black Americans for enslavement that happened generations ago. While it is something many liberal politicians allegedly endorse, Horace pointed out the impossibility of being able to justify such a thing in this day and age in addition to determining who is qualified to receive the benefit:
Across the board, this is a dumb idea. It doesn’t make sense.
There is no correlation between the status of a black American, white American or brown American today and what happened with slavery.
We have had an intermixing and immigration effort that has changed and transformed the makeup of this country. You’re not even able to identify. Does Kamala Harris – is she a beneficiary?
Watch the entire discussion below.
A coalition of over 30 conservative and faith-based leaders has signed a letter to the CEOs of some of the biggest technology-related companies, asking them to “drop any and all ties” to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC).
Over the years, FEP has been active in taking corporate America to task for its support of the SPLC. Some companies have not only provided financial support to the SPLC but have also allowed the group to dictate their affiliations, despite the SPLC’s dubious reputation.
While the SPLC’s left-wing politics have long made its judgment suspect, new allegations about an environment of racism and sexism permeating SPLC headquarters led to the recent ouster of founder Morris Dees, President Richard Cohen and others.
That makes this letter to the CEOs so important right now. In the letter – sent to Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Google – Danhof and the others point out:
For years, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has branded itself the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes hate in America. You, along with the liberal media, have played a part in elevating them into this role…
However, it is now clear that the SPLC has proven to be a hate-filled, anti-Christian, anti-conservative organization and nothing more than a weapon of the radical Left, whose goal is to bully people into compliance with their ideology. Fail to comply with their demands, and you will be labeled as a hate group or an extremist.
The recent news regarding the termination of co-founder Morris Dees and resignation of president Richard Cohen are but the latest episodes that call into question SPLC’s status. There is simply no longer any defensible rationale left for an organization to use them as a point of reference or in any advisory capacity. We are writing today to demand you drop any and all affiliation with the SPLC. Moreover, you should restore your own credibility by making a public statement disavowing the SPLC and affirmatively stating that you do not have a formal or informal relationship with them.
Citing the new race and gender problems facing the SPLC, the letter additionally notes:
When combined with SPLC’s clearly demonstrated anti-Christian and anti-conservative bias, it is time for reputable organizations to cut all ties with SPLC, and denounce them as nothing more than a politically motivated tool of the Left.
While you were previously unwilling to cut ties with SPLC for targeting its political enemies with hate-filled and biased allegations, are you going to continue to work with an organization which reportedly allowed outrageous discrimination to occur for years as well? By maintaining the SPLC in an advisory capacity Facebook is embracing SPLC’s hate-filled agenda.
Organizations joining the National Center on the letter include the American Legislative Exchange Council, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Conservative Partnership Institute, Family Research Council and Young America’s Foundation. The Media Research Center led the effort in circulating the letter.
As the nation’s most active conservative shareholder activist organization, FEP has brought up the problem of the SPLC’s political influence in the business world for years:
FEP also recently signed a letter to Attorney General William Barr that asked for an investigation of Facebook, Google and Twitter for possible censorship of conservative voices on their platforms, noting that they “all have a significant liberal agenda hardwired into their platforms.”
Additionally, a full-page open letter appeared in the April 4 edition of the Montgomery Advertiser, the newspaper serving the SPLC’s headquarters. The letter called for SPLC donors to suspend further support until there is a “truly independent public ombudsman to investigate financial and employment improprieties.” It also called for an end to the SPLC’s “hate map” – which it called a “cynical fundraising tool… sowing the divisions it claims to cure.”
Brian Glicklich, the letter’s author and executive director of Citizens for Corporate Accountability, noted that:
[Y]ou publish “hate map” lists that mix truly violent and hateful organizations with those guilty of no more then seeing the world differently than you. You demand that financial and tech giants stop doing business with all those on your list or face your wrath. And all too often, these public corporations do your bidding.
Glicklich added that: “It’s time for SPLC to become accountable to your own staff and the donor public.”
Nadra, also known as “Cap Black,” is a self-described “safety creator” in New Orleans. In his neighborhood, he has assisted law enforcement in the arrest of almost 20 suspected criminals during 2018 and 2019. He advises residents and businesses on public safety issues and helps victims work with police to try to resolve the crimes committed against them.
The Home Defense Foundation bills itself as “[n]eighbors teaching neighbors about home and self-defense” as well as “[o]rganizing homeowners and taxpayers into a political force.” Among its board of advisors is Jeff Crouere, a talk radio show host on WGSO-New Orleans who regularly features guests from Project 21 and the National Center.
I accepted this award on behalf of safety advocates and concerned citizens ignored by elites in media and politics. Not all urban residents hate police, prosecutors and those engaged in lawful self-defense. I’m a proud voice for them.
This was a great honor!
If you are a safety creator, police and prosecutors are your allies against adversaries happy to make life a nightmare. Some don’t want to hear this story told – but kudos to those who do!
Besides his work with Project 21, Nadra is the founder of the Urban Safety Committee and an apprentice member of the National Association of Fugitive Recovery Agents.