During a Senate hearing, Representative Andy Harris played video footage he said showed a convicted shooter who was later employed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Harris used the footage to question the organization's hiring practices and oversight procedures, sparking a heated exchange over accountability and political extremism. The presentation drew strong reactions from lawmakers and reignited debate surrounding the SPLC's role, credibility, and employment decisions.
#AndyHarris #SenateHearing #SPLC #Congress #USPolitics #CapitolHill #BreakingNews #PoliticalDebate #PublicSafety #Lawmakers #WashingtonDC #Hearing #Accountability #PoliticalNews #USNews
~PR.498~ED.102~GR.506~HT.96~VG.HM~
#AndyHarris #SenateHearing #SPLC #Congress #USPolitics #CapitolHill #BreakingNews #PoliticalDebate #PublicSafety #Lawmakers #WashingtonDC #Hearing #Accountability #PoliticalNews #USNews
~PR.498~ED.102~GR.506~HT.96~VG.HM~
Category
đ
NewsTranscript
00:00I want to bring attention today to what Corkins told the police, which we happen to have on video
00:07right here, and I would call your attention to Corkins' video. There's no speculation here,
00:15you know, there's no need for interpretation at this. The convicted shooter specifically
00:24cited SPLC as his source for finding out about Family Research Council. Speaks for itself.
00:33Mr. O'Neill, they had an extremist file webpage, didn't they? Yes. And they would, on this webpage,
00:39they would pick out some crazy hate guy, and they would, you know, some bad guy, and he was like
00:43the
00:44extremist of the month. They'd highlight him, and they would say, send us money to stop so-and-so.
00:47Is that right? Exactly. And F42 was one of the field sources, number 42, chair of some crazy hate
00:53group. The Southern Probability Law Center highlighted him on their webpage. He's bad,
00:58he's evil, send us money. Is that right? Yes. Did they tell their prospective donors they were paying
01:04this guy? No. They didn't tell him. Did they tell him they were paying him $140,000? No, not to
01:12my
01:13knowledge. So they said, let's stop the racists, even though we're paying him to be racist. That was
01:17their pitch. But they didn't tell him that, did they? No, they did not. Is that appropriate,
01:20Ms. Wiley? I'm sorry, which part? Sorry. All of that. Is that appropriate to tell your donors,
01:28this is the extremist of the month, this hateful racist guy is really bad, send us money,
01:34but not tell those donors who you're taking their money from that we're paying this guy $140,000?
01:39Is that appropriate? Well, we have public reporting that over a dozen donors actually said that they
01:44take the money as intended. Simple question. Field Source 42 got $140,000 from the Southern
01:50Poverty Law Center, was featured on their webpage as extremist of the year or month or whatever they
01:55call these bad guys, and they were paying him, and they were getting money. Is that appropriate?
02:01Simple question. And donors have supported it, and they keep trying to send more money to the
02:05Southern Poverty Law Center. No, no, no. Is that technique appropriate? That's what I'm asking.
02:10That is not unlawful to say that people have done X, Y, or Z. I didn't ask if it was
02:15lawful or
02:15unlawful. As you said earlier in your testimony, the court's going to determine that when they go to
02:19trial. What I'm asking you, is it appropriate? As I said, the donors have spoken, and in fact,
02:25they're trying to send more money now, and there are financial institutions refusing to send the
02:29money. Is the Alliance Defending Freedom, is that a hate group? I don't know. I don't do designations.
02:35Well, they've argued 16 cases before the Supreme Court, won 16 cases before the Supreme Court.
02:42They stand for traditional values. Southern Poverty Law Center labeled them a hate group. Are they a hate
02:45group? I don't know them, and I don't work on the designations. Here's one thing. Let me ask you
02:51this. Is Jane's Revenge, is that a hate group? Because the ADF, they didn't firebomb anybody,
02:56but Jane's Revenge did. ADF is labeled a hate group. Jane's Revenge isn't. I want to know how you would
03:02label. I'm not here as a person who designates groups. I'm here to talk about the impact on
03:07civil rights. Okay. Mr. Perkins, in your opening statement, you talked about how it was just worse
03:14than the SPLC because how they've put themselves out there or become the standard of help from the
03:21government, I think, in becoming the source of the standard on evaluating and determining what
03:24groups are hate groups or what groups aren't. But it's bigger and broader. It has things. But I think
03:29the real thing here is how closely they worked with the government to carry out what they were
03:36trying to do. And the reason the Biden administration embraced them, I think, so fully was
03:41politics, simple politics. You agree? Well, there are members of this committee that were endorsed by
03:46SPLC. They had a C4 was involved in elections. So they were not just an umpire. They were a player
03:55on the field as well. So how can they be objective in determining who is a purveyor of hate and
04:03who is
04:03not? I mean, they had a stake in this. But to your point about their engagement with government,
04:10it goes much further than the federal government and the FBI and the Department of Justice and the
04:14Department of Defense, which their material was in briefing to the members of the military. But they
04:22also continue to have their learning for justice, which is about 500,000 educators across America
04:27and bulletins to local law enforcement. And I happen to know because the agency I was with,
04:33the sheriff called me and said, Hey, we got a bulletin says you're a part of a hate group.
04:37Yep. And he was laughing. Yep. And but that is the reach that they've had. This is the hub.
04:44They're the hub. But there's spokes that go out. And I think that's an appropriate metaphor.
04:49Ms. Wiley, the SPLC labeled a brilliant black conservative, the woman sitting to your left,
04:55Dr. Carol Swain, a quote, apologist for white supremacists, close quote, simply for daring to
05:02disagree with them. Do you personally think Dr. Swain is a racist? I don't know, Dr. Swain. What I will
05:09say is what's important about the Southern Poverty Law Center's work is that it identify where and how
05:14we have problems. I'm asking you. I'm asking you. You're choosing not to answer. Okay. You don't
05:18know her? Have you read any of her writings? I have not. Okay. So Dr. Swain, what was the impact
05:25of SPLC's radical, just unnecessary attack on you? What was the result of that? It actually set in
05:36motion a series of events that led to my retiring in 2017. And there are more things that happened. But
05:44once the Southern Poverty Law Center labels a black conservative as an apologist for white supremacists,
05:54then people don't know how to process that. But I can tell you that James Taranto of the Wall Street
06:01Journal wrote a 2,000-word article in defense of Carol Swain. That's the title of the article,
06:08In Defense of Carol Swain. That helped a lot. But I think that it hurt the Southern Poverty Law Center
06:14as well, because people knew that if they went after the author of a book on white nationalism,
06:20I published with Cambridge Press in 2002, a book, The New White Nationalism in America
06:26is challenged integration. They went after me. And so I was...
06:33You were a tenured professor, Vanderbilt and Princeton, and it impacted your career.
06:41It definitely impacted my career.
06:43There's nothing hateful about the Family Research Council. Family Research Council is a pro-family,
06:48pro-life group that promotes the Christian values held by many, many Americans. But that didn't stop
06:55the SPLC from placing FRC on this map. What was clearly a politically motivated designation
07:04was intended to harm FRC, and it had dire consequences. We've mentioned it today. On August 15,
07:122012, Floyd Lee Corkins II entered Family Research Council's headquarters in Washington, D.C.,
07:18and opened fire. It was FRC security guard Leo Johnson who heroically tackled Corkins to the ground
07:26and wrestled the gun out of his hand despite being shot in the arm. And thankfully, no one was killed,
07:31and Corkins was sent to prison for a period of time. However, I want to bring attention today to what
07:39Corkins told the police, which we happen to have on video right here. And I would call your attention
07:46attention to Corkins' video.
07:50Now, how did you, this building, this organization, did you, did you, did you,
07:54how did you find it or did you like look it up online or how did you nail it?
07:57The, uh, Southern Poverty Law lists, uh, anti-gate groups, like, not online.
08:04Okay.
08:09I did a little bit of research, and guess where he landed?
08:13There's no speculation here, you know? There's no need for interpretation at this. The convicted
08:21shooter specifically cited SPLC as his source for finding out about Family Research Council.
08:32Speaks for itself. I will say, this may seem like a silly question, but following the 2012 attack on
08:38your headquarters, did SPLC ever reach out to apologize? No. Well, I think it's disgraceful
08:49that FRC has put such a hate map to begin with in place. They, SPLC does not need to agree
08:57with
08:57everything that FRC says, does, or stands for. However, their actions of placing this organization
09:05on a hate map is clearly an attempt to cripple and socially ostracize a conservative organization,
09:11and it cannot be allowed again and again. The talking point for the Democrat high brain today
09:18is that, uh, Jim Crow is alive and well in America, and I am sure that some of the SPLC's
09:24actions have
09:24helped them make this argument. For the purposes of elucidating my colleagues on, on the other side of
09:30the aisle, let's take a hard look at what real Jim Crow was. Check out this one behind me. You
09:38see,
09:39this is Jim Crow. This is what Democrats call Jim Crow. Next slide, please. See, see, that is Jim Crow.
09:52Jim Crow. For whatever reason, this is what Democrats call Jim Crow. Next slide, please.
10:02That is Jim Crow. This is what Democrats call Jim Crow. I know that some of these images can seem
10:13to be
10:14very jarring to many of us that haven't experienced that over the course of the past 40 years of my
10:19lifetime. I never saw these things. I never experienced them personally, but I have family
10:25members who have and who did, and that's why it is extraordinarily important for us to be very,
10:30very careful with what we compare to Jim Crow because this country has come a very, very long way.
10:37I keep saying this over and over and over and over again till I am blue in the face.
10:41I represent a white majority district along with three of my other black colleagues here in Congress,
10:48and you know what? Nobody cares about what we look like. We are being judged, not by the color of
10:54our
10:54skin, but by the content of our character because we've come a long way from this. I don't want to
11:01go
11:01back to that. In fact, I want to continue on the path that America has set forward in the name
11:06of Jesus
11:06Christ. And I want to let people know that we don't need to be angry. We don't need to be
11:12divided.
11:13We want equality for everyone. Let me be crystal clear. This is not 1960 anymore. It's 2026.
11:23And the fact that groups like these are willing to stroke the flames of hate by funding the KKK
11:32is absurd. Well, you condemn Boston's local leaders from trying to defund the police. They
11:39did that in their recent budget proposal. This is, I don't live in Boston. What I will say
11:45is this was a hate crime. Do you think that defunding the police helps or hurts public safety?
11:49The question I think that I was asked to come speak to was the rise of hate and the critical
11:56importance of us addressing and protecting civil rights. Well, you said earlier that you respect
12:01Mr. Murrell's right to a free street. So I'm asking you, will you condemn the local leaders'
12:07efforts to defund the police? I will not make any comment about local decisions. What about
12:13Mayor Wu's policy of offering sanctuary to people here illegally, regardless of their criminal history?
12:19Will you condemn that? No. So it seems like your qualification on public safety is very limited,
12:25correct? No, I think it is. Now, I'm detecting a little bit of, it seems like, viewpoint and
12:33partisan bias from the SPLC. Mr. Perkins, I want to talk to you a little bit about this. Do you
12:38know
12:38why there is such fervent resistance, or I would say fervent hatred for traditional viewpoints for
12:45Christians, for people like yourself? I do, because we have a fixed view of marriage,
12:53of human sexuality, and that stands in the way of the left's ideological push to transgender our
13:01children and to redefine marriage. And so in order to shut us up, knock us off the media, defund us,
13:07they have to label us alongside of these racist groups. Right. Ms. Wiley, do you think that biblical
13:13values are extreme? I can't, that, I don't even understand the question, sir. I'm very simple. Do
13:20you believe that biblical values are extreme? I believe that people have the right to have
13:27their beliefs, including their interpretations of religion, whatever their religion is. Is Mr. Perkins'
13:33belief in traditional biblical values what brought him to the forefront of the SPLC's hate group map?
13:38I can't speak for the SPLC's decision. You are today. I am here to speak about hate and bias,
13:45and what I am here to say is... You think that belief in biblical values promotes hate and bias?
13:48That is way too broad a question to answer. What I'm, what I'm very clear on is that we
13:53have a constitution that protects First Amendment rights, including freedom of religion. We support
13:58that as a civil rights community that includes almost every faith and an interfaith alliance.
14:03Well, I know, let me just stop you there. You know, I know Dr. Swain well. She's a scholar.
14:08She's independent. She's very well thought out. Why was she listed as someone to be concerned about?
14:14I'm here because we're talking about hate. I do not engage in the designations.
14:19Is she a hateful person? I don't know her.
14:21You're on behalf of the SPLC? I'm on behalf of civil rights,
14:25the leadership conference. Is she anti-civil rights? I don't know her.
14:28How did this organization again go from doing some good work against real racists like the
14:35Aryan nations to suddenly targeting people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights and care
14:40about kids like Moms for Liberty? Where is that process? Yeah, there, the answer to that question
14:45is long and complicated, and that's what my book was trying to do. But the main, so first,
14:54there was Morstees who was a consummate fundraiser, and he decided to take the SPLC in that suing the
15:01Klan direction. And the lawyers said it was like shooting fish in a barrel. But I think the real
15:07answer to your question, the substantive answer, is that we've seen on the left this ideological drift
15:14where it used to be that they would stand for your right to disagree and speak openly. And now it
15:22is
15:22as though if you disagree with anything that the left says, you must be a vile, racist hater. Like,
15:29this has always been a little bit of the rhetoric, but it got supercharged after 2020. And one of the
15:35reasons why Moms for Liberty is on the hate map is because many people on the left seem to work
15:42themselves into a lather and think that America is still systemically racist. And critical race theory is
15:50so deeply, you know, their idea of critical race theory is that white supremacy is so deeply embedded
15:56in our institutions that you have to have a fundamental revolution on a systemic basis. Otherwise,
16:04you are supporting white supremacy. And that's the main reason, I think, why the SPLC justifies
16:10calling conservatives the infrastructure upholding white supremacy.
16:14Do you think the SPLC is interested in racism being solved?
16:21I don't have expertise on that particularly. I think, um, I wish I could say that I do believe
16:29that, but I, I don't know. How do you explain the continued willingness of major press outlets to
16:38cite the SPLC as an authoritative source? And by the way, I think 12 years ago, 13 years ago, any
16:46reasonably
16:47well, um, educated American would have known that SPLC was just a, uh, a disgusting made up group.
16:56Uh, but, but, and, and I would think that any, uh, newspaper, magazine, online magazine that cites them
17:04should be considered totally discredited anybody who's done it the last 12 years. But how, how do you,
17:10Mr. O'Neill, uh, explain why so-called major press outlets, at one time prestigious outlets,
17:19still cite SPLC as an authoritative source? I think it's because the SPLC positions itself as a weapon
17:26of the left by demonizing the sorts of conservatives that many in the mainstream left want to render
17:36irrelevant. And therefore it is a weapon, a reputational weapon against people who are
17:42inconvenient for the left's narrative. Yep. Go ahead, Mr. Perkins. Well, they leverage their
17:48relationship with government to be able to do that with the media. And then they leverage the
17:53relationship with the government, with the corporations. And that's how they were able
17:58to get the corporations to de-bank and de-platform conservatives because of that relationship.
18:04Go, I go back to the illustration of the hub. They're at the center of it, but they're not alone.
18:09Right. Yes. I would also say that they leverage their relationship with universities, especially law
18:16schools, because a lot of their, uh, the law students will go and intern with the Southern Poverty Law Center.
18:23Mr. O'Neill, do you believe that SPLC's conduct crossed the line from infiltrator to instigator?
18:32Yes, based on the information in the indictment.
18:35So in response to the indictment, the SP, we also found out that the SPLC was sharing information with
18:41law enforcement. I've got concerns about that because of the, how biased the SPLC obviously is,
18:48and the information that they were sharing with law enforcement was also biased. I think that you
18:53can tell that by the questioning, or at least the, the accusations that were just recently made,
18:58and even some of the articles that were identified by the, the woman from California, uh, the, the
19:05articles themselves, even accusing the, the folks this week of committing the horrible act at the mosque
19:10out in San Diego, uh, their own writings defy and, and disagree with what she was, uh, alleging over
19:17there. Individuals on the right and left have long recognized that the SPLC is no longer the group that
19:23it was founded to be. Mr. O'Neill, shouldn't we be concerned that our government and law enforcement
19:28are accepting information from knowingly biased sources?
19:33Yes. We should be concerned that they were receiving information specifically from a group
19:38that systematically demonizes concerned parents, uh, conservative Christian groups,
19:44and even groups of LGB people who oppose the sexualization of children. Republicans aren't
19:50upset when the Southern Poverty Law Center labels racist organizations, racist. We're upset when they
19:55label non-racist organizations, conservative organizations, racist, and we're upset when they pay racist.
20:00That's why we're having the hearing.
20:04Subscribe to One India and never miss an update.
20:09Download the One India app now.
Comments