Image 01 Image 03

Reporters Must Ask Clooney One Key Question About the SPLC

Reporters Must Ask Clooney One Key Question About the SPLC

The Clooney’s gave $1 million to a group that is actively hostile to conservative organizations

George Clooney makes some reporters swoon, and it has little to do with his handsome mug.

The Oscar winner is one of the industry’s more thoughtful stars, sharing his progressive views in a way his peers can’t often match. He’s hobnobbed with President Barack Obama, testified before Congress and traveled the globe to research causes near and dear to his heart. Disagree with him all you want, but he’s not likely to curse out a sitting president at an awards gala. Nor do you have to clear the kids out of the room when he appears for a TV interview.

That makes him both appealing and aligned with the left-leaning nature of most entertainment journalists. They’d rather ask him about his stylish marriage to Amal Clooney, a civil rights attorney, than dig up any dirt that might make him look shabby.

There’s still a critical question yet to be asked of him. And it’s important for both his humanitarian image and equal rights nationwide.

Last year George and Amal Clooney cut a massive $1 million check for the Southern Poverty Law Center. The organization that claims dedication to stamping out bigotry.

The couple acted following the events in Charlottesville, Va., where a “Unite the Right” rally featuring white supremacists had tragic consequences. A 32-year-old counter-protester, Heather Heyer, died when James Alex Fields, Jr., 20, drove into a crowd of her fellow counter-protesters.

“Amal and I wanted to add our voice (and financial assistance) to the ongoing fight for equality,” Clooney told USA TODAY via a prepared statement at the time of the donation. “There are no two sides to bigotry and hate.”

The latter comment found the Clooneys trolling President Donald Trump, who made the inelegant statement defending a portion of the protesters who may not agree with any white nationalist beliefs.

On the surface, the donation seemed both generous and timely. Only the SPLC is not what it appears to be. The group has routinely targeted Christian and conservative groups with no discernible ties to bigotry, hate or racism.

Among those previously targeted by SPLC? Rand Paul, Ben Carson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The group’s tentacles spread beyond its press-friendly blasts about the latest in “hate” news.

According to a report by the Daily Caller News Foundation, Amazon gives the SPLC full control over which groups need to be terminated from its Amazon Smile charitable program. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian organization, recently got cut from the Amazon Smile program.

Legal Insurrection was cut from the Amazon Associates program, without credible rationale for the decision.  This service allows websites to generate revenue when users visit Amazon after clicking ads located on other sites.

Conservative outlets like the National Review, have pounded the SPLC for moving from civil rights to free speech suppression.

Even Politico, hardly a conservative outlet, wondered last year if the group had “lost its way.”

It all begs a simple question: what say you, George?

Does Clooney have any comment about these actions? Does he believe Christian and conservative groups deserve a place on the SPLC hate watch radar? If so, why? If not, does he regret sending such a massive sum to the group? Can he use his considerable clout on the unfairly maligned groups’ defense?

Perhaps his celebrity status (and financial muscle) could coax the SPLC back to its core mission and away from unfairly targeting innocent groups.

Just don’t hold your breath waiting for anyone to ask Clooney that critical question.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Clooney supports a hate organization because Clooney is full of hate. See how straightforward that was?

Anything leftist always loses its way. Its natural way will bring about its own end. ASAP hopefully.

Lets cut the nice-nice talk. Trump shot his big mouth off and got tripped up with the skinheads. Inelegant? Whatever. That’s something a lawyer would say. Keep on keepin’ on, brother.

George Clooney is a Hollywood rainmaker. He’s raised hundreds of millions of dollars for radical progressive political causes. His treatment of Eisenhower in Good Night, and Good Luck? Lousy. How dare he. Murrow and William Shirer turned a blind eye to Stalin, because FDR turned a murderous dictator into Smilin’ Uncle Joe? And Clooney turns Murrow into a sainted godhead- and plays the part! Clooney=Jesus in that film. The HUBRIS.

Oh well. Meh.

inspectorudy | June 16, 2018 at 4:19 pm

The Oscar winner is one of the industry’s more thoughtful stars, sharing his progressive views in a way his peers can’t often match. He’s hobnobbed with President Barack Obama, testified before Congress and traveled the globe to research causes near and dear to his heart.

What you are saying is that Clooney is like putting icing on a turd!

“The Oscar winner is one of the industry’s more thoughtful stars…”
Says who?

Trump was right, there was hate and violence on both sides but REALLY, it was the Left perpetrators that started it which was set up by the mayor, governor and BLM groups

Screw them

The Left would go crazy if Clooney decides to run for President. A full white obama

He is a self confessed drunk and womanizer but he is a democrat so all is forgiven.

YellowGrifterInChief | June 16, 2018 at 6:43 pm

What happened in Charlottesville was not a tragedy; it was an atrocity. It was started by white supremacists. Those who marched with them, but aren’t as extreme are called fellow travelers. They were either naive or oblivious. They were not innocent.

The Presidents response was B.S. and you all know it. It was mealy-mouthed and he never is. That alone should tell you something.

Why don’t you worry about your side of the debate? Are you going to claim that there isn’t any hate creeping around in your neighborhood?


    What happened in Charlottesville was a repeat of the Battle of Cable Street — two equally deplorable gangs of thugs fought each other, with some innocents on both sides swept into the melee.

    You claim the white supremacist thugs started the violence? How do you know? What evidence makes you think so, and why should we accept it? The opposite makes much more sense. After all, they didn’t come to fight, they came to peacefully protest, and if their opponents had not organized the counterprotest there would have been no violence at all. It was their opponents who came openly declaring that they would shut it down by force. So it makes more sense to suppose they started the violence.

    Marching? It was not a march, it was a rally. By definition it stayed in one place, so nobody “marched with them”. And the stated purpose of the rally was perfectly respectable; to protest the removal of monuments that many good and reasonable people wanted to be left where they’d been without harming anyone for decades.

    If you claim that anyone who came to the rally was a “fellow traveler” of the white supremacists and therefore not innocent, then surely the same must be true of everyone who came to the counterprotest, including the woman who was killed. She was not innocent, she was a “fellow traveler” of the communist thugs who were there to beat up the white supremacists (and everyone else who was protesting the monuments’ removal).

    JohnSmith100 in reply to YellowGrifterInChief. | June 17, 2018 at 8:22 am

    The far left, including SPLC have become just as bad as the KKK and Aryan Nation.

I’ve said for years that the SPLC is a hate group, in and of itself, and demonizes anything & anyone to the right of communism.

The fact there are popular, high profile people with deep pockets to enable the intolerance & bigotry of the SPLC, yet face no backlash, and indeed, are celebrated for their support of this hate group, indicates just how deluded & deranged some elements of this society truly are.

SPLC had to move away from civil rights lest it bring attention that legal favoritism for minorities crossed the center line awhile back, and that the affirmative action bureaucrat with the room temperature IQ that you spent 45 minutes on the phone with earlier in the day is exactly what the SPLC has contributed to society. That and shakedowns have better financial returns.

With all the scandals of Morris and the gang any real news organization would have investigated them down to their shoes and splc would be beggars.
But we don’t have real news organizations (Is it true or is it cnn?) so they’re allowed to be guardians choosing the hate groups.
His divorce was interesting.

It buys him peace. That is all there is to it. The left, the government, the IRS keep off his case.

I’m that guy who insists data is a plural word… And begs people who mean “raises the question” to say that instead of begs the question, which means to evade or not answer a question.

    Milhouse in reply to markinct. | June 17, 2018 at 2:07 pm

    To beg a question doesn’t mean to evade it, it means to give an answer that assumes its own validity, i.e. to reason in a circle.

I remain unconvinced that SPLC was ever one of the good guys. I remember when the ACLU and Amnesty International were both on the side of good, and one could be proud to support them. Amnesty lost its way in the mid-’90s, and the ACLU in the early ’00s. But I don’t remember SPLC ever not being the force for evil that it is now.